Hugh Damright
New member
Which best describes your view of incorporation?
Last edited:
Yes, but that's how the ball gets rolling. After a few successful suits, state and municipal governments will think twice before passing new restrictions.What I think it will do is generate litigtion for years, if not decades to come.
wuluf said:What I think it will do is generate litigtion for years, if not decades to come.
Incorporation has nothing to do with federal powers. Federal powers are already limited by the Bill of Rights whether or not those same rights are incorporated against the States.
But also keep in mind that the preceding Freedmens Bureau Bill and Civil Rights Act addressed this by saying that laws regarding protection of person and property must result in equal benefit and protection, and this equal protection clause carried over to the 14th. I believe the intent was a federal power over discriminatory gun laws, not a federal power over gun laws in general.Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was geared to overturn the 1857 Scott (AKA Dred Scott) v Sandford, which said black people could not be citizens, and used as an example of that not be a citizen the ability to carry firearms.
I think Taney was correct ... what was he to do, rule that negroes were citizens and that every State in the Union was in violation of the Constitution and always had been?Read Tandy's decision ... and throw up.
Some people seem to think the idea is to level the governments, to have the Second Amendment bind the feds and the States to the same degree ... which seems to lead to a vision of the feds having gun control powers just as the States do.Incorporation has nothing to do with federal powers.
I think Taney was correct ... what was he to do, rule that negroes were citizens and that every State in the Union was in violation of the Constitution and always had been?