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.

[thackney]

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.

Owning a car does not require registration or insurance.  Driving it on public roads makes that a requirement.  Keeping a collectible in your garage or a hunting off-road truck requires neither registration or insurance.

[Smokin Joe]

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

Ahem

You still haven't answered my question.

Simply enough, there is not only nothing in the Constitution which says mothers have the right to murder their babies in utero,
there is nothing in the supporting writings about the Constitution so much as implying such a 'right'.

It is of whole cloth, cut from the black robes of five justices. Not one damned thing Constitutional about it.


However, the Founders wrote often of the sanctity of Life, especially the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness....but nowhere did they say you could murder innocents along the way. In fact, they went to great extremes to protect the innocent, willing to suffer, as it were, to let guilty parties go free rather than hang one innocent person.

How any group of judges, acting on the erroneous (or falsified) material presented by a law clerk, could find in perfect contravention to those stated philosophies that anyone had a right to murder babies in utero defies anything approaching even legal logic.

By the selfsame token, there was a great deal of discussion about arms, the right to keep and bear them, spelled out in the Federalist and elsewhere, for the purpose of securing the State against invasion, against tyranny, for securing the safety of self, family, property, and community. The groundwork is well laid, and the Amendment clear, that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.
If that Right is indeed of the People (as stated), it should not pass from them when they cross any boundary within the United States.
To imply that the States, who ratified or signed on to the compact between the People and the Federal Government need not abide by that compact, is disingenuous. Shall they also only abide only by odd numbered articles on odd numbered days, and even numbered ones on even numbered days, or perhaps leave the choice to lot, or the roll of dice?

Abide by the agreement or not, in or out, half measures do not a nation make.

If upon entering statehood, a state decided to subvert the very nature of our country, what purpose other than to suck the benefits from the rest while not affording such to their own citizens?

In reality, after the 17th Amendment, the States lost much of their representation in Congress, while bribes of funding undercut much of the rest, but that is another discussion.

[Bill Cipher]

Ahem

You still haven't answered my question.

Simply enough, there is not only nothing in the Constitution which says mothers have the right to murder their babies in utero,
there is nothing in the supporting writings about the Constitution so much as implying such a 'right'.

It is of whole cloth, cut from the black robes of five justices. Not one damned thing Constitutional about it.


However, the Founders wrote often of the sanctity of Life, especially the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness....but nowhere did they say you could murder innocents along the way. In fact, they went to great extremes to protect the innocent, willing to suffer, as it were, to let guilty parties go free rather than hang one innocent person.

How any group of judges, acting on the erroneous (or falsified) material presented by a law clerk, could find in perfect contravention to those stated philosophies that anyone had a right to murder babies in utero defies anything approaching even legal logic.

By the selfsame token, there was a great deal of discussion about arms, the right to keep and bear them, spelled out in the Federalist and elsewhere, for the purpose of securing the State against invasion, against tyranny, for securing the safety of self, family, property, and community. The groundwork is well laid, and the Amendment clear, that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.
If that Right is indeed of the People (as stated), it should not pass from them when they cross any boundary within the United States.
To imply that the States, who ratified or signed on to the compact between the People and the Federal Government need not abide by that compact, is disingenuous. Shall they also only abide only by odd numbered articles on odd numbered days, and even numbered ones on even numbered days, or perhaps leave the choice to lot, or the roll of dice?

Abide by the agreement or not, in or out, half measures do not a nation make.

If upon entering statehood, a state decided to subvert the very nature of our country, what purpose other than to suck the benefits from the rest while not affording such to their own citizens?

In reality, after the 17th Amendment, the States lost much of their representation in Congress, while bribes of funding undercut much of the rest, but that is another discussion.

There sure is:  the same thing that says the second amendment applies to the states:  substantive due process. 

If you don’t like Roe v. Wade, then you are necessarily committed to the position that McDonald was wrongly decided and that the second amendment does not apply to the states. 

You can’t have it both ways and not be a lawless hypocrite. 

[Cyber Liberty]

There sure is:  the same thing that says the second amendment applies to the states:  substantive due process. 

If you don’t like Roe v. Wade, then you are necessarily committed to the position that McDonald was wrongly decided and that the second amendment does not apply to the states. 

You can’t have it both ways and not be a lawless hypocrite.

That's an interesting line of reasoning:  One cannot be against Roe v Wade and for the 2nd Amendment at the same time.  Let's see how many you can persuade with that argument.   

[Bill Cipher]

That's an interesting line of reasoning:  One cannot be against Roe v Wade and for the 2nd Amendment at the same time.  Let's see how many you can persuade with that argument.   

I don’t expect to convince anyone here - they’ve all made up their minds based on their subjective desires.  That doesn’t change the fact that the two sit on the same foundation. 

[Cyber Liberty]

I don’t expect to convince anyone here - they’ve all made up their minds based on their subjective desires.  That doesn’t change the fact that the two sit on the same foundation.

How difficult it must be...posting on a forum clear full of hypocritical morons who won't be convinced reasonable gun restrictions are a wonderful thing.

[Jazzhead]

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.

Your quarrel is with Justice Scalia,  who acknowledged that the individual RKBA found in Heller is subject to reasonable regulation.   I support registration, licensure and insurance as reasonable, efficacious regulation that does not, as a Constitutional matter,  rise to the level of an unlawful infringement.  What I oppose is arbitrary bans on entire classifications of useful firearms (such as semi-automatic arms) and accessories.   

My view is own whatever and how many guns you want,  so long as they are registered and insured.   

[Jazzhead]

How difficult it must be...posting on a forum clear full of hypocritical morons who won't be convinced reasonable gun restrictions are a wonderful thing.

All individual rights under the Constitution are subject to reasonable regulation and limitation.   You seem to think guns are uniquely protected from such regulation; they're not.   

Folks like @skeeter keep pointing to the rights of states under the 10th amendment.   He thinks that the states can choose to restrict abortion under the 10th amendment.   If he's right, then the same goes for guns.   How can it be otherwise?   

[Cyber Liberty]

Your quarrel is with Justice Scalia,  who acknowledged that the individual RKBA found in Heller is subject to reasonable regulation.   I support registration, licensure and insurance as reasonable, efficacious regulation that does not, as a Constitutional matter,  rise to the level of an unlawful infringement.  What I oppose is arbitrary bans on entire classifications of useful firearms (such as semi-automatic arms) and accessories.   

My view is own whatever and how many guns you want,  so long as they are registered and insured.

And I think I'd rather not give the government a handy list of what I own.  Governments tend to use those lists when they decide the public is too stupid to be armed.

[Jazzhead]

That's an interesting line of reasoning:  One cannot be against Roe v Wade and for the 2nd Amendment at the same time.  Let's see how many you can persuade with that argument.   

Rights for me and rights for thee.   Are BC and me really the only two here who believe that?   

[Bill Cipher]

How difficult it must be...posting on a forum clear full of hypocritical morons who won't be convinced reasonable gun restrictions are a wonderful thing.

If you say so.  I suppose as an admin you can get away with categorical personal insults like that.

[Cyber Liberty]

Rights for me and rights for thee.   Are BC and me really the only two here who believe that?

Ralph Waldo Emerson:

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”

[skeeter]

All individual rights under the Constitution are subject to reasonable regulation and limitation.   You seem to think guns are uniquely protected from such regulation; they're not.   

Folks like @skeeter keep pointing to the rights of states under the 10th amendment.   He thinks that the states can choose to restrict abortion under the 10th amendment.   If he's right, then the same goes for guns.   How can it be otherwise?   

I'm just a stupid non-lawyer who believes a contemporary & controversial right found swirling inside 'penumbras and emanations' 50 years ago is in no way equivalent to a specific liberty clearly enumerated in the Constitution from the very start in plain english.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm just a stupid non-lawyer who believes a contemporary & controversial right found swirling inside 'penumbras and emanations' 50 years ago is in no way equivalent to a specific liberty clearly enumerated in the Constitution from the very start in plain english.

As an aside, @skeeter, I apologize for lumping you in with the rest of us morons.   

[skeeter]

As an aside, @skeeter, I apologize for lumping you in with the rest of us morons.   

Don't mention it. I'm happy to be not as astute as they are.

[Bill Cipher]

I'm just a stupid non-lawyer who believes a contemporary & controversial right found swirling inside 'penumbras and emanations' 50 years ago is in no way equivalent to a specific liberty clearly enumerated in the Constitution from the very start in plain english.

Would you do your own open heart surgery, or go to the barber because, well, he’s got sharp tools and knows how to cut, or would you go to a heart surgeon?

Maybe working with the law is something similar?   Just a thought. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Would you do your own open heart surgery, or go to the barber because, well, he’s got sharp tools and knows how to cut, or would you go to a heart surgeon?

Maybe working with the law is something similar?   Just a thought.

I got full custody of my son filing In Pro Per....

[Jazzhead]

I'm just a stupid non-lawyer who believes a contemporary & controversial right found swirling inside 'penumbras and emanations' 50 years ago is in no way equivalent to a specific liberty clearly enumerated in the Constitution from the very start in plain english.

Both rights are "controversial",  because the tendency to want to deprive others of their rights is shared by both right and left, as well as the tendency to protect ferociously those rights that are important to ourselves personally.   Both right and left, IOW,  promote rights for me but not for thee and refuse to see the hypocrisy.    But there's another position - to respect and reasonably regulate BOTH the individual gun right and the individual choice right.   Certainly conservatives should be sensitive to the protection of individual liberty from encroachment by majorities.   

[skeeter]

Would you do your own open heart surgery, or go to the barber because, well, he’s got sharp tools and knows how to cut, or would you go to a heart surgeon?

Maybe working with the law is something similar?   Just a thought.

I wouldn't hire Michael Avenatti to represent me.

[skeeter]

Both rights are "controversial",  because the tendency to want to deprive others of their rights is shared by both right and left, as well as the tendency to protect ferociously those rights that are important to ourselves personally.   Both right and left, IOW,  promote rights for me but not for thee and refuse to see the hypocrisy.    But there's another position - to respect and reasonably regulate BOTH the individual gun right and the individual choice right.   Certainly conservatives should be sensitive to the protection of individual liberty from encroachment by majorities.

I fundamentally disagree with your first sentence. The right to keep and bear arms is controversial only with totalitarian minded, as it always has been and that remains its raison d'etre.

So we'll go no where with this. You can just write it up to me as being untutored in the art of 'working with the law'.

[Cyber Liberty]

Both rights are "controversial",  because the tendency to want to deprive others of their rights is shared by both right and left, as well as the tendency to protect ferociously those rights that are important to ourselves personally.   Both right and left, IOW,  promote rights for me but not for thee and refuse to see the hypocrisy.    But there's another position - to respect and reasonably regulate BOTH the individual gun right and the individual choice right.   Certainly conservatives should be sensitive to the protection of individual liberty from encroachment by majorities.

Claiming the right to self-defense is equivalent to the right to murder an unborn baby is a pretty tough sell.  Good luck with that.

[Cyber Liberty]

I fundamentally disagree with your first sentence. The right to keep and bear arms is controversial only with totalitarian minded, as it always has been and remains its raison d'etre.

I disagree with that too.

So we'll go no where with this. You can just write it up to me as being untutored in the art of 'working with the law'.

There's "legal" and there's "moral."  These discussions throw that contrast in sharp relief.  Standing on judicial precedent to justify immoral acts is pretty thin ice for the legalists to stand upon.  To draw an equivalence is to say self-defense is as immoral as aborting a baby or driving on a street without a license.

[Jazzhead]

Claiming the right to self-defense is equivalent to the right to murder an unborn baby is a pretty tough sell.  Good luck with that.

You put the rabbit in the hat framing the comparison that way.   As I've said many times before -  feel free to advance your own moral view of the matter.  Just don't conscript the State to force your morality on others.   Women don't abort unless they feel they have no other choice.  It's a bad choice.   The solution without trampling liberty is to minimize unplanned pregnancies,  and to provide support for women in crisis. 

 And it's a pretty tough sell to brand women as "murderers".    How many women do you expect to listen to you after you hang that label on them? 

[Jazzhead]

I fundamentally disagree with your first sentence. The right to keep and bear arms is controversial only with totalitarian minded, as it always has been and that remains its raison d'etre.

So we'll go no where with this. You can just write it up to me as being untutored in the art of 'working with the law'.

I support your right to keep and bear arms.    What I support is licensure and registration.   Do that, and as far as I'm concerned you can have all the toys you want.   

[Bill Cipher]

I wouldn't hire Michael Avenatti to represent me.

Neither would I.  I also wouldn’t hire a heart surgeon who has a long disciplinary record, either.  Due diligence is something that can be done without a degree in the field.