Cases lining up to ask Supreme Court to clarify Second Amendment rights

[CarmelHP]

It should revert back to a state by state issue. Let those that don't want people to have guns live in their own states and be sheeple.

80 years before the incorporation doctrine began to take hold and a decade before the 14th Amendment was Scot v. Sanford (1857), the notorious Dred Scot decision, the darling of "Suthrins" and Lost Causers in which U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justine Taney listed his parade of horribles of what the result of mere citizenship for slaves would entail:

"It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Apparently not everyone thought that the BoR restricted only the federal government.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Apparently not everyone thought that the BoR restricted only the federal government.

Without question.

The actual incorporation of the 2nd Amendment did not occur, surprisingly enough, until 2010.

Well, by the United States Supreme Court. The States have a long history of applying the Second Amendment to the States.

What is ironic is that the Southern States were incorporating the Second Amendment to the States decades before the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is one of my favorites from the Supreme Court of Georgia from 1846:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/nunn_v_state.txt

 

[tgallmey]

?????????? What is there not to understand. There all a bunch of lawyers cant they read?


A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Whats so confusing about that?

Give me liberty or give me death, Dont tread on me

 

[ThrottleJockey]

?????????? What is there not to understand. There all a bunch of lawyers cant they read?


A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Whats so confusing about that?

Give me liberty or give me death, Dont tread on me

Easy enough to get confused if you leave out

of the

and are only left with

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, The RIGHT PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

 

[Kutnupe14]

Without question.



Well, by the United States Supreme Court. The States have a long history of applying the Second Amendment to the States.

What is ironic is that the Southern States were incorporating the Second Amendment to the States decades before the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is one of my favorites from the Supreme Court of Georgia from 1846:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/nunn_v_state.txt

That's not in question. The question is whether the federal govt, allowed for the application, prior to incorporation; which it did not. One cannot deny, that since day one the restrictions listed in the BoR, originally, applied soley to the feds and not the states. Heck, trial by jury and the right to counsel (6th/7th Amendment), weren't incorporated until the 1960s. It was only the federal govt which had to extend those privs.

 

[jsharmon7]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this argument, but my understanding was that the BOR applied to states as well after Mapp v. Ohio?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this argument, but my understanding was that the BOR applied to states as well after Mapp v. Ohio?

Most would say the 15th Amendment incorparted the BoR to the states, however many states had cases which they used to do it themselves. However, even to this day, there are parts of the Constitution (BoR) which do not apply to states.

 

[CarmelHP]

Most would say the 15th Amendment incorparted the BoR to the states, however many states had cases which they used to do it themselves. However, even to this day, there are parts of the Constitution (BoR) which do not apply to states.

14th.

I tend to agree with Hugo Black on jot for jot.

 

[CarmelHP]

Most would say the 15th Amendment incorparted the BoR to the states, however many states had cases which they used to do it themselves. However, even to this day, there are parts of the Constitution (BoR) which do not apply to states.

You ignored Taney's statement, he apparently felt that citizenship opened the door to full BoR protections in each state, including the right to keep and carry arms.

 

[Sigasaurus]

Simple minds promote simple soulutions. People have the common tendency that if they fear something then it needs to be outlawed. The problem doesn't lie in the government it lies in the people of this country. The people are ruled by scare tactics and just step to the wayside as laws are made "to protect". It's time to take a stand!!! Just because you don't believe in a constitutional right doesn't mean it gives you the right to change it. The forefathers of this country would be disquisted in the people as a whole today.