It’s Time For The Supreme Court To Make States Stop Ignoring The Second Amendment

[Bill Cipher]

The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution (known as the Bill of Rights) are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Prior to the doctrine's (and the Fourteenth Amendment's) existence, the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal Government and to federal court cases. States and state courts could choose to adopt similar laws, but were under no obligation to do so.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

Actually, the doctrine has only been applied selectively to incorporate only certain provisions against the states (Hugo Black favored a mechanical incorporation of all the provisions, but his view did not prevail), and it really only applies with full force to the first eight amendments; the ninth isn’t really an enumerated right, and so there isn’t much to incorporate, and it wouldn’t make any sense to incorporate the tenth, for the most part. 

And, most importantly, incorporation is applied under the doctrine of substantive due process, the same doctrine used to justify Roe v. Wade. 

[Bill Cipher]

In that case, you should be every bit as supportive the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as you are of Roe.   Are you?

I am.  I agree with most of the Court’s discussion in Heller and McDonald, and I think that the right exists as against the states as well as the federal government. 

I also think that it is subject to reasonable regulation, just like every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is subject. 

Now see, isn’t asking so much more fruitful, and less antagonistic, than assuming?

[Cyber Liberty]

I am.  I agree with most of the Court’s discussion in Heller and McDonald, and I think that the right exists as against the states as well as the federal government. 

I also think that it is subject to reasonable regulation, just like every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is subject. 

Now see, isn’t asking so much more fruitful, and less antagonistic, than assuming?

I said "It appears to be your view..."  Not "It is your view."

[Bill Cipher]

I said "It appears to be your view..."  Not "It is your view."

Ahhh.  Isn’t asking more fruitful, and less antagonistic, than appearing to make an ass out of u and me?

[txradioguy]

Which you painfully know nothing of.

Again...it's obvious I know way more about it than you do.  Otherwise you'd be displaying said knowledge of history instead of mocking those of us that are clearly more versed in American history than you are.

[Cyber Liberty]

Ahhh.  Isn’t asking more fruitful, and less antagonistic, than appearing to make an ass out of u and me?

It's worth the risk.   

(Yes, I agree, and am chagrined.  Seriously.)

[Jazzhead]

In that case, you should be every bit as supportive the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as you are of Roe.   Are you?

Yes.   Rights for me AND rights for thee.   What a concept! 

 And each of the individual gun right and the choice right are subject to reasonable regulation.   And the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter when such regulation crosses the line into unreasonableness and the denial of the right.   

[Jazzhead]

Again...it's obvious I know way more about it than you do.  Otherwise you'd be displaying said knowledge of history instead of mocking those of us that are clearly more versed in American history than you are.

@Bill Cipher is displaying far more knowledge of history than you are.   Incorporation was indeed a doctrine that found its way into the Constitution only after the 14th amendment AND the SCOTUS's ruling regarding selective incorporation.    You've posited nothing that contradicts what BC has said.   

So how about it @txradioguy  - what is your objection to rights for both me and thee?   

[Bill Cipher]

Again...it's obvious I know way more about it than you do.  Otherwise you'd be displaying said knowledge of history instead of mocking those of us that are clearly more versed in American history than you are.

It’s obvious that you know nothing.

[Smokin Joe]

@Bill Cipher is displaying far more knowledge of history than you are.   Incorporation was indeed a doctrine that found its way into the Constitution only after the 14th amendment AND the SCOTUS's ruling regarding selective incorporation.    You've posited nothing that contradicts what BC has said.   

So how about it @txradioguy  - what is your objection to rights for both me and thee?

You are free to be aborted at any time.

I'll keep my guns, thanks.

The natural right to self defense has ever existed. That is what makes it unalienable.

No nation which has kept the practice of human sacrifice, whether it be on the altar of some 'god' or for mere convenience has survived.

[txradioguy]

@Bill Cipher is displaying far more knowledge of history than you are.   Incorporation was indeed a doctrine that found its way into the Constitution only after the 14th amendment AND the SCOTUS's ruling regarding selective incorporation.    You've posited nothing that contradicts what BC has said.

His questions were asked and answered.  The 2nd Amendment wasn't applied in 1789 as he queried about because it hadn't been written yet.

He asked a separate question about whether a federal law applies to the states...again asked and answered with the 14th Amendment.

Two separate questions...two separate and accurate answers.  It's not my fault neither of you like the answer.


Oh and by the way a state or a nation are nothing without people.  The Bill of Rights was written to protect and guarantee certain things for the individual...the people if you will.

One of those guaranteed rights for every individual person regardless of which of the 12 states they may have lived in at the time...was the right to keep and bear arms.

The attempt to meld people and the state together to form a lame anti gun argument is just that...lame. 

[Bill Cipher]

His questions were asked and answered.  The 2nd Amendment wasn't applied in 1789 as he queried about because it hadn't been written yet.

He asked a separate question about whether a federal law applies to the states...again asked and answered with the 14th Amendment.

Two separate questions...two separate and accurate answers.  It's not my fault neither of you like the answer.


Oh and by the way a state or a nation are nothing without people.  The Bill of Rights was written to protect and guarantee certain things for the individual...the people if you will.

One of those guaranteed rights for every individual person regardless of which of the 12 states they may have lived in at the time...was the right to keep and bear arms.

The attempt to meld people and the state together to form a lame anti gun argument is just that...lame. 

Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance. 

[Smokin Joe]

What you left out is something even the States should acknowledge. The Right of the People to keep and bear arms is retained by the People, not reserved to the States, nor to be infringed by the Federal Government. It is specifically stated as the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, in the 2nd Amendment, the italicized phrase commonly left out by those who would try to weaken that Right.
It's voted on, ratified, even by those seeking statehood.

Even more, for instance, in State Constitutions the Right is also repeated: In North Dakota: Article I, § 1 of the North Dakota Constitution states that all individuals have certain “inalienable rights,” and includes among them the right “to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.”

Show me where the 'right' to abort babies is written in any Constitution, Federal or State.

[Bill Cipher]

What you left out is something even the States should acknowledge. The Right of the People to keep and bear arms is retained by the People, not reserved to the States, nor to be infringed by the Federal Government. It is specifically stated as the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, in the 2nd Amendment, the italicized phrase commonly left out by those who would try to weaken that Right.
It's voted on, ratified, even by those seeking statehood.

Even more, for instance, in State Constitutions the Right is also repeated: In North Dakota: Article I, § 1 of the North Dakota Constitution states that all individuals have certain “inalienable rights,” and includes among them the right “to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.”

Show me where the 'right' to abort babies is written in any Constitution, Federal or State.

Show me where it’s written that the second amendment must apply to the states.

[txradioguy]

Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance.

Coming from you that's a compliment.

Still waiting for you to dazzle us with your brilliance on this subject.  Your "intelligence" on this subject has been snark and sarcasm. So far you've been quite underwhelming...but then that's typical for yOu.

[txradioguy]

Show me where it’s written that the second amendment must apply to the states.

Show me where the 4th has to.  Or the 3rd...or the 7th.

[skeeter]

Show me where it’s written that the second amendment must apply to the states.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

10th Amendment seems pretty clear.

[Bill Cipher]

Show me where the 4th has to.  Or the 3rd...or the 7th.

That’s just the point: they don’t.  The Court has applied all of those rights selectively under substantive due process, the same rationale it used for Roe v. Wade. 

[Bill Cipher]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

10th Amendment seems pretty clear.

Wow.

Just wow.

That’s so far off base it’s not even good enough to be wrong. 

[Bill Cipher]

Coming from you that's a compliment.

Still waiting for you to dazzle us with your brilliance on this subject.  Your "intelligence" on this subject has been snark and sarcasm. So far you've been quite underwhelming...but then that's typical for yOu.

I’ve already demonstrated how it is that the Court has applied the Bill of Rights, including the second amendment, to the states: using the same substantive due process basis that it used to justify Roe v. Wade. 

But you don’t seem to have the basic facts necessary to have even a 101 level discussion on that. 

[Smokin Joe]

Show me where it’s written that the second amendment must apply to the states.

I asked first.

[skeeter]

Wow.

Just wow.

That’s so far off base it’s not even good enough to be wrong.

In your mind I'm sure it is.

[Bill Cipher]

In your mind I'm sure it is.

No.  It’s pretty objectively wrong. 

[Bill Cipher]

I asked first.

In other words, you don’t know.  You just believe it because you so badly want it to be true. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Yes.   Rights for me AND rights for thee.   What a concept! 

 And each of the individual gun right and the choice right are subject to reasonable regulation.   And the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter when such regulation crosses the line into unreasonableness and the denial of the right.

You don't support the Second as I know it.  You want registration (licensing) and government mandated insurance.  IOW, a weapon is no different than a car.  What you call "reasonable regulation" I call infringing upon the right.