[RaySendero]

Originally Posted by bkt

Nope. The Bill of Rights established limits only on the Federal government.

The OP asked how to explain the 2A - I did that.

You are wrong. The BOR was intended for all Citizens - both collectively and individually. The rights were not to be infringed by any government body in the US. You are repeating the current PC lawyer junk that opponents want you to think.

For instant - If state and local governments can deny you your 2A - They can deny you your 1A rights. I thnik not - Its not a double standard. But in practice, both state and local governments have infringed on these rights and we've let!!!

[notdku]

Originally Posted by skullcrusher

I just got a recall notice for my B-2. It seems that one of the bay doors is a tad sticky. Damn Chinese made actuators! I am thinking of trading it for an F16 and a dozen claymores. Is that a good deal or is that a good deal!

I thought that was spam and I erased the email. Huh. I didn't have any issues on the way into work.

[bkt]

Originally Posted by RaySendero

The OP asked how to explain the 2A - I did that.

You are wrong. The BOR was intended for all Citizens - both collectively and individually. The rights were not to be infringed by any government body in the US. You are repeating the current PC lawyer junk that opponents want you to think.

For instant - If state and local governments can deny you your 2A - They can deny you your 1A rights. I thnik not - Its not a double standard. But in practice, both state and local governments have infringed on these rights and we've let!!!

"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788

"The jealousy of the subordinate governments is a precious reliance. But observe that those governments are only agents. They must have principles furnished them whereon to found their opposition. The declaration of rights will be the text whereby they will try all the acts of the federal government. In this view, it is necessary to the federal government also; as by the same text, they may try the opposition of the subordinate governments." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789

You might want to set Mr. Jefferson right because he's obviously wrong according to you.

The Constitution pertains to the Federal government, not state governments.

"Madison also proposed three restrictions on the states: 'No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.' It is interesting to speculate that Madison may have considered these three the most critical rights. These restrictions were not approved by Congress, and thus the Bill of Rights in its original intent was to restrict only the federal government. Eventually more extensive restrictions were imposed on the states by the 14th amendment and its interpretation by the Supreme Court" (Source)

I encourage you to read up on incorporation and how most certainly not everything in the BoR is incorporated against state and local governments.

While it is agreed that unalienable rights are unalienable rights and that no government may infringe on them, the purpose and intent of the BoR was to limit the power of the central federal government.

You may argue that 14A automatically incorporates the BoR against lesser governments, but the SCOTUS doesn't see things that way.

SCOTUS ruling in 1833:
The provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States.

The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation, and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally and necessarily applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes.

[Dillinger]

**For those watching from the bleachers:**

There are few things that are a certianty on this board.

NGIB may be in a good mood every once in awhile.
Robo may post in a thread and that thread may continue.
Cane may actually post in defense of a Glock.
Benning may spend time posting as himself and not an alter ego.
Tango may actually want to give out hugs and snuggle with puppies.

bkt being certain and correct about the Constitution and Constitutional Law is about as definitive as it gets around these parts.

JD

[clip11]

Originally Posted by bkt

Nope. The Bill of Rights established limits only on the Federal government. Portions of the BoR have been incorporated against state (and therefore local) governments but until recently, 2A was definitely not among them. It may be that 2A has been incorporated against the states (MacDonald v. Chicago and 9th Circuit ruling), but until there are suits against state/local governments challenging gun control laws those laws won't disappear.

What steps would you go about to challenge them?

[bkt]

Originally Posted by clip11

What steps would you go about to challenge them?

Cite McDonald v. Chicago (SCOTUS, 2010) and Nordyke v. King (9th Circuit, 2009) as the basis for de facto incorporation of 2A against the states. Then cite Murdock v. Pennsylvania (SCOTUS, 1943) in which the SCOTUS ruled:

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down. A person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.'"

That would go some ways toward eliminating applying for a costly permit (in my county, it runs upward of $200 with a six- to 12-month wait). No permit is required for enjoyment of any other rights incorporated against the states, and 2A should be no different.

The right team of very-costly lawyers might just be able to pull that off. But then, it would probably only apply to my county and not nullify other county's laws in my state. And it would do nothing (but set precedent, maybe) for other states.

[bkt]

Originally Posted by Dillinger

**For those watching from the bleachers:**

There are few things that are a certianty on this board.

NGIB may be in a good mood every once in awhile.
Robo may post in a thread and that thread may continue.
Cane may actually post in defense of a Glock.
Benning may spend time posting as himself and not an alter ego.
Tango may actually want to give out hugs and snuggle with puppies.

bkt being certain and correct about the Constitution and Constitutional Law is about as definitive as it gets around these parts.

JD

You're very kind, JD. But my understanding of history and law is pretty shaky, and I welcome folks to correct me when I step in it.

[RaySendero]

Originally Posted by bkt

"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788

"The jealousy of the subordinate governments is a precious reliance. But observe that those governments are only agents. They must have principles furnished them whereon to found their opposition. The declaration of rights will be the text whereby they will try all the acts of the federal government. In this view, it is necessary to the federal government also; as by the same text, they may try the opposition of the subordinate governments." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789

You might want to set Mr. Jefferson right because he's obviously wrong according to you.

The Constitution pertains to the Federal government, not state governments.

......

No Jefferson wasn't wrong - He and madison were going through these same discussions prior to ratifying the BOR. They produced a "text" for the Federal government to be used for subordinate govenments, too as the discussion continued. Jefferson statement shows he assumed the BOR would be ratified by all the state govenments. Madison even proposed that all 10 rights to be included in US constituion to be ratified by all the states in another constitutional convention, which did not happen.

This is the typical PC lawyer junk I was refering to. And you are your own worst enemy on this subject.

[bkt]

Originally Posted by RaySendero

No Jefferson wasn't wrong - He and madison were going through these same discussions prior to ratifying the BOR. They produced a "text" for the Federal government to be used for subordinate govenments, too as the discussion continued. Jefferson statement shows he assumed the BOR would be ratified by all the state govenments. Madison even proposed that all 10 rights to be included in US constituion to be ratified by all the states in another constitutional convention, which did not happen.

This is the typical PC lawyer junk I was refering to. And you are your own worst enemy on this subject.

Respectfully, I've not taken to insulting you or your knowledge and I don't take kindly to your doing it to me. I've offered up some substantive references for my position, and you have essentially said "No, you're wrong. Neener neener neener!" and scampered off.

Man up. Show me the text -- legislation or even personal correspondence -- of the era that suggests the Federal Constitution's Bill of Rights was intended to apply to states. Refute the whole concept of incorporation. Explain to me how, after the Articles of Confederation, which had been dropped because the central government that sprang from it was too weak, how the acrimony that existed between state governments and the nascent central government -- out of a longstanding distrust of a strong central government -- was going to be quelled with this new federal government telling state governments how to treat their citizens.

The Bill of Rights was necessary because many delegates refused to ratify the Constitution without it! It was regarded as a safeguard against the Federal government, not their own trusted state governments. The LAST thing these guys wanted was to have a powerful central government lay down the law for their own "countries" (states).

[RaySendero]

bkt,

I did not mean any insult and would not want others reading our debate to read it as such.

As pointed out in an earlier post, the 2A has been incorporated against the state and local governments in the MacDonald v. Chicago and 9th Circuit Court ruling. This ruling has already reverberated through many of our local governments and their police agencies, causing many to temporarily stop some of their activities that infringe on our 2A. But again as was mentioned, this ruling has not played itself out through all the potential legal twists and turns.

WE need to be unified on this issue, rather than trying to show our individual knowledge. We shouldn't act like lawyers. Don't be your own worst enemy - Stand together for your 2A rights. Let's claim the 2A as our inalienable right and not let it be taken away in these twists and turns that will surely come!