Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[daveman]

What liberals think Americans need is irrelevant.

...and dangerous to liberty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree wholeheartedly tha the 2nd Amendment protects our right to own and bear arms.

I also happen to believe as a solid centrist that SCOTUS use of incorporation is absolutely correct in extending the protection to the states. I also know that it is a statist procedure.

Anybody who argues that it is not statist is ignorant, mentally feeble, or malignant.

It's occurred to me that you don't actually know what a statist is. You keep bandying it around, but it really is just another barb to you. You might as well say motherfucker. From you, it means the same thing.

That would explain my confusion, I was assuming the word means the same thing to him as it does to me, and he is simply using it as a pejorative.

 

[Jeremy]

What liberals think Americans need is irrelevant.

 

[daveman]

I agree wholeheartedly tha the 2nd Amendment protects our right to own and bear arms.

I also happen to believe as a solid centrist that SCOTUS use of incorporation is absolutely correct in extending the protection to the states. I also know that it is a statist procedure.

Anybody who argues that it is not statist is ignorant, mentally feeble, or malignant.

It's occurred to me that you don't actually know what a statist is. You keep bandying it around, but it really is just another barb to you. You might as well say motherfucker. From you, it means the same thing.

That would explain my confusion, I was assuming the word means the same thing to him as it does to me, and he is simply using it as a pejorative.

He dropped his Word of the Day toilet paper in the toilet when he was on the S's.

 

[The T]

What liberals think Americans need is irrelevant.

This is true. For their needs aren't the wants nor the Necessities of this Republic. Nevedr has been, never will be.

Their needs have gotten us to where we are, and that is a royal shithole that used to be a Republic.

 

[Tech_Esq]

You do realize, don't you, that the Second takes precedence over the 10th, right?

No, doesn't look like you do. Well, guess what? Today's decision says it does.

Did you really mean to quote me with that response?

If so, I'd be interested in hearing your formulation of Constitutional interpretation where one part of the Constitution "takes precedence" over another part.

Now, there is a particular reason why you happen to be right in this instance, not that it's applicable to the discussion at all, but you get bonus points if you can cite the case.

I made my point poorly. It's the 14th that prevents the States from restricting the right guaranteed by the 2nd:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

Actually, it wasn't until this case that the 2nd amendment was incorporated using the 14th amendment. The Heller decision specifically declined to do so. That's why this case came up. The District court and the Court of Appeals followed the law as it existed. The Supremes then announced in this decision that the 2nd amendment is incorporated by the 14th amendment and applies to the states, saying that the 2nd amendment doesn't deserve to be treated as a shabby second class amendment, but deserves equal treatment with the other first 8 amendments.

Just FYI, nobody on the court said the 2nd amendment was one of the "privileges and immunities" of being a citizen except Justice Thomas. Justice Alito, for the court, said that it was not necessary to consider whether it was or not because the gloss on the cases considering incorporation had all come through the "due process" clause of the 14th amendment and so could the 2nd amendment.

And, to answer my own question, because it is my torch and I won't stop repeating it until it's overturned, the U.S. v. Darby Lumber Co. is why the 2nd would trump the 10th. The Supremes said in 1941 that the 10th Amendment was a mere truism and had no teeth. Basically, they voided it. So, until the court corrects that travesty, everything in the Constitution trumps the 10th Amendment.

 

[Jeremy]

I just found out that the 9th district court of appeals will be taking up Jake's case in regards to the lawsuit he filed against his brain for negligence. Good for him. Hope he wins.

 

[CurveLight]

The second amendment is the sodom and gomorrah story of the Constitution. There is nothing in the 2nd explicitly affirming individual rights to own weapons but only under a well regulated militia I fully support the right to own guns but it's not in the 2nd amendment.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I just found out that the 9th district court of appeals will be taking up Jake's case in regards to the lawsuit he filed against his brain for negligence. Good for him. Hope he wins.

What about District 9?

 

[The Rabbi]

The second amendment is the sodom and gomorrah story of the Constitution. There is nothing in the 2nd explicitly affirming individual rights to own weapons but only under a well regulated militia I fully support the right to own guns but it's not in the 2nd amendment.

That theory was pretty well destroyed by Heller. Go look at Scalia's excellent opinion

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Just to clear up a few things being tossed about:

I am a Federally licensed gun dealer (Class I). In my State, there is no waiting period. If the FBI proceeds your background check, you walk out of the store with the gun. Other States have 3, 7, 10, and 30 day waiting periods for some or all firearms.

With a class III license, you can own almost any weapon out there. A class III consists of registering with the FBI and ATF as a license holder (including photographs and fingerprints), and passing a background check. Other than a higher fee to have a class III, the only other requirement (and the reason I do not have a class III) is that you waive your right to a warrantless search for any and all weapons registered to you. You have to notify ATF of the location of the weapon(s) at all times (even in transport) and you give any LE with jurisdiction the right to go wherever the weapon is (including your home) without a weapon in order to secure it. A class III allows you to possess and transport explosives as well. To my knowledge, the only weapons you are not allowed to possess with a class II are those classified as "proprietary" or top secret, and those reserved for military application only (we're talking nuclear weaponry here).

Silencers (suppressors) are also legal, but many States require a class III to have them. Montana doesn't, where they are used primarily by hunters as a courtesy to landowners.

Montana has taken up the fight with the Fed on gun rights. They are setting up to implement a State-wide system where the Federal Government is no longer involved in the process. If a firearm (or silencer) is manufactured in Montana, sold to a Montanan, and does not leave the State of Montana, they maintain that the Federal Government has no authority to enforce ANY restriction or regulation upon the buyer, seller, or State. The law went into effect in October of last year, but will not get really interesting until the Fed responds, which to my knowledge they haven't as of yet.

In any event, I just wanted to throw that out there. Overall, the ATF does a very good job, but you have to keep in mind that criminals don't go by ATF guidelines. They purchase their weapons on the street, from unlicensed sellers, or they steal them in burglaries. The adage "only criminals will have guns" is easily observed if you spend a week calling in 4473s to the FBI. There is nothing anyone can ever do to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, other than killing all the criminals.

I'm in NY. I can buy an AK-47, not fully automatic and no flash suppressor or bayonet. Um, if I have an AK-47, what's the point in denying a bayonet? Is the bayonet more dangerous?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The second amendment is the sodom and gomorrah story of the Constitution. There is nothing in the 2nd explicitly affirming individual rights to own weapons but only under a well regulated militia I fully support the right to own guns but it's not in the 2nd amendment.

You must be a Prince fan, seein' that you party like it's 1995.

Get with the program...

a. “…well regulated militia…” Consider the sentence “Being a fisherman, Joe needs a boat.” Does this mean that Joe should only buy a boat if he fishes for a living? The reference to a militia is a reason why the people have a right to arms, but it is not the only reason.
“When the words of the enacting clause are clear and positive, recourse must not be had to the preamble.” James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, 1858 (Legal scholar and law professor at Columbia College)

In the Constitution, Congress is given the power “to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts” by enacting copyright and patent laws (Article 1, Section 8). Would you argue that every copyright work or patented invention must promote scientific progress and useful arts?
George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights:"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)

The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)
The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.
Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 andmembers of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)

b. “…well-regulated…” Regulated does not refer to government regulations. Contemporary meaning from definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Regulated" has an Obsolete definition (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and then "discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military, "Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill and experience; the art of war." (The pesky meaning of "Well Regulated" - Democratic Underground)

 

[daveman]

Did you really mean to quote me with that response?

If so, I'd be interested in hearing your formulation of Constitutional interpretation where one part of the Constitution "takes precedence" over another part.

Now, there is a particular reason why you happen to be right in this instance, not that it's applicable to the discussion at all, but you get bonus points if you can cite the case.

I made my point poorly. It's the 14th that prevents the States from restricting the right guaranteed by the 2nd:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

Actually, it wasn't until this case that the 2nd amendment was incorporated using the 14th amendment. The Heller decision specifically declined to do so. That's why this case came up. The District court and the Court of Appeals followed the law as it existed. The Supremes then announced in this decision that the 2nd amendment is incorporated by the 14th amendment and applies to the states, saying that the 2nd amendment doesn't deserve to be treated as a shabby second class amendment, but deserves equal treatment with the other first 8 amendments.

Just FYI, nobody on the court said the 2nd amendment was one of the "privileges and immunities" of being a citizen except Justice Thomas. Justice Alito, for the court, said that it was not necessary to consider whether it was or not because the gloss on the cases considering incorporation had all come through the "due process" clause of the 14th amendment and so could the 2nd amendment.

And, to answer my own question, because it is my torch and I won't stop repeating it until it's overturned, the U.S. v. Darby Lumber Co. is why the 2nd would trump the 10th. The Supremes said in 1941 that the 10th Amendment was a mere truism and had no teeth. Basically, they voided it. So, until the court corrects that travesty, everything in the Constitution trumps the 10th Amendment.

I agree it's a travesty that any Amendment has been voided.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The second amendment is the sodom and gomorrah story of the Constitution. There is nothing in the 2nd explicitly affirming individual rights to own weapons but only under a well regulated militia I fully support the right to own guns but it's not in the 2nd amendment.

MORON. The second provides two specific protections. One is that the federal Government can not prevent the States from having Militias and the other is that the RIGHT of the people to be armed can not be denied.

EVERY other amendment where the term the "people" is used nit is clearly understood to provide a right to the individual. You would have us believe under the second that does not apply.

 

[daveman]

The second amendment is the sodom and gomorrah story of the Constitution. There is nothing in the 2nd explicitly affirming individual rights to own weapons but only under a well regulated militia I fully support the right to own guns but it's not in the 2nd amendment.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The second amendment is the sodom and gomorrah story of the Constitution. There is nothing in the 2nd explicitly affirming individual rights to own weapons but only under a well regulated militia I fully support the right to own guns but it's not in the 2nd amendment.

Guess who thinks you're wrong?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Read it. Know it. Live it.

And quit making up shit about it.

You know nothing of what you write. I made you look like a fool yesterday with your silliness. I will do it again here if you persist.

You know how you could really make me look like a fool?

By showing the part of the Constitution that allows states to abridge rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

You ever gonna get around to doing that? Or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Son, you don't understand the concept of incorporation in relationship to the 14th, do you? That is why you will lose on birthright citizenship, why you will continue to lose on Roe, why the civil rights legislation was both constitutionally and morally correct, and a host of other issues.

A conservative court adopted leftist procedures (incorporation) for the decision.

The Roberts Court gutted far right conservative and libertarian positions. Watch Paul scream in the news. Actually google both of them for there reaction about this.

I am laughing. Never did I think Roberts would have the guts to do this, and I am glad he did.

 

[Jeremy]

The second amendment is the sodom and gomorrah story of the Constitution. There is nothing in the 2nd explicitly affirming individual rights to own weapons but only under a well regulated militia I fully support the right to own guns but it's not in the 2nd amendment.

It all depends on interpretation. Of which, yours is now irrelevant. In order for the states to be able to create a regulated militia the right of the people to bear arms should not be infringed.

 

[The T]

I agree wholeheartedly tha the 2nd Amendment protects our right to own and bear arms.

I also happen to believe as a solid centrist that SCOTUS use of incorporation is absolutely correct in extending the protection to the states. I also know that it is a statist procedure.

Anybody who argues that it is not statist is ignorant, mentally feeble, or malignant.

It's occurred to me that you don't actually know what a statist is. You keep bandying it around, but it really is just another barb to you. You might as well say motherfucker. From you, it means the same thing.

That would explain my confusion, I was assuming the word means the same thing to him as it does to me, and he is simply using it as a pejorative.

Let us examine the meaning of Statist...

Statism: stat·ism (st

t

z

m)
n. The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.


So Jakey? From your posts the very things that you write about? You are a fan of Centralised Government. There's NO dispute. Jake you use the term loosely on folks that aren't, and the people you call it are 180 degrees out from a Statist...but what you really have done is to Embue it upon yourself.

-Nice Job-

Jakey? You should really be more careful. Seriously.

 

[Tech_Esq]

You know nothing of what you write. I made you look like a fool yesterday with your silliness. I will do it again here if you persist.

You know how you could really make me look like a fool?

By showing the part of the Constitution that allows states to abridge rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

You ever gonna get around to doing that? Or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Son, you don't understand the concept of incorporation in relationship to the 14th, do you? That is why you will lose on birthright citizenship, why you will continue to lose on Roe, why the civil rights legislation was both constitutionally and morally correct, and a host of other issues.

A conservative court adopted leftist procedures (incorporation) for the decision.

The Roberts Court gutted far right conservative and libertarian positions. Watch Paul scream in the news. Actually google both of them for there reaction about this.

I am laughing. Never did I think Roberts would have the guts to do this, and I am glad he did.

So, you won't take up the challenge to back your statements. You just continue to spout without foundation. Come on smart guy. It can't be that hard. Show the citations that form your opinion that incorporation relies on liberal judicial underpinnings and not a historical basis going back to the 19th century.

Where do you think it start Brennan and Marshall? Douglas? Come on....put up or shut up.