brickeyee
RaySendero
The original Bill of Rights (10) were adopted as a single unit in 1791. They are a collection of mutually reinforcing guarantees of an individual US citizen's rights and of limitations on the federal, state and local governments.
No, it ONLY LIMITED the federal government until the 14th amendment was passed extending the protections against the states.
The 14th was then eviscerated by the SCOTUS defining down what "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" consisted of.
.....
WE need to be unified on this issue, rather than trying to show our individual knowledge.
Lets try "State" as "State of being". As "The Status of Being Free".
If some people hadn't turned against the US Constitution, the others would have had no reason or justification for secession.People have fought and died to keep the union--while others did the same to try to break it up.
I think ithe 39th Congress intended the 14th be mostly an antidiscriminatory measure, creating a federal power to strike down discriminatory laws, not a federal power to strike down any law that violates the federal view of "rights".what congress had intended, the extension of federal rights against the states in response to the ongoing mistreatment of the former slaves in the south.
Mark Warner and Jim Webb. States have equal representation in the Senate. I think California has 70 times as many people as Wyoming, but both States have two US Senators. I really can't get any traction on what you're saying. It's as if you're insisting that two = zero.Virginia does NOT have representation in DC.
What are we talking about ... a State recalling/impeaching a Senator? I am not familiar with that ... but we pick our Senators and if they don't perform to our satisfaction then I reckon we'd pick someone else next time.Think your entire state can hold a 'senator' accountable?
Yeah, and the way things are going I might live to see a popular vote. But it seems to me that the further we stray from the original intent, the more important it is that we understand the US Constitution.2A has been incorporated
Some of us think that federalizing everything is the problem, not the solution.If we do not claim the 2A as our inalienable right now, We could very easily lose it entirely in the legal twists and turns that will surely come following the above ruling.
members of TFL are all ONE militia
CapeCodShooter said:But the devil is on the details. If semiautomatics are okay for private ownership, why not full automatics? Hand grenades? Nuclear tipped missiles? That's why we have courts, to decide the "finer" points of what the founders laid down over 200 years ago. And it ain't always easy.
CapeCodShooter said:I practiced law for thirty years (not auto accidents, but really obtuse stuff) and never had an "easy" case, meaning a case where the law and the facts were clear.
Al Norris said:The other amendments are just that, other amendments.
I've heard this argument before and I just don't think it's realistic. I don't buy the idea that the 2A was primarily meant as a "self destruct mechanism" by which the citizens or the states could overthrow a tyrannical federal government; if it was, it was only as a last resort.. What if by militia, the writers of the 2nd Amendment meant it as the "revolters" of a tyrannical government? Instead of an actual state organized militia, but rather just a group of civilians who are fighting the government due to oppression?
If we do not claim the 2A as our inalienable right now, We could very easily lose it entirely in the legal twists and turns that will surely come following the above ruling.
No the misconception is that the signers of the BOR would do so knowing that these inalienable rights of the people could be taken away by subordinate governments. .
A free State is a State with free government. And free government means that the people are ruled only by laws which they consent to. I hardly see how the Second Amendment was intended to secure free government against foreign rule by not to secure it against federal rule. I think the point was to secure free government against any threat, whether foreign or domestic.I believe that in using the words "...the security of a free State..." in the 2A, the founders meant that the states would be secure from external forces, NOT from the federal government.
I think it was understood that State governments could violate rights, and that is why the States had their own bills of rights. It's not as if the reason they wanted a USBOR to limit only the US government was because they thought the States could do no wrong. They wanted a USBOR to limit only the federal government because that is how contitutionalism works i.e. a constitution frames a government and a bill of rights limits THAT government. The US Constitution was framing a new government, and some wanted a BOR to limit it. They were concerned that the US Constitution was creating a government that was too powerful. The last thing they would have done is requested amendments to increases federal power beyond all measure by making the federal government the "protector of rights".More likely they never even considered such a thing [as States infringing on the RKBA] could happen