Philosophically, I think it is unjust for the state to remove the means to defend oneself. I'm not a fan of prior restraint in general. Pragmatically, we have a system of government in which power is delegated to the state via a constitution. If the people of the state delegate authority to disarm its citizens then it is legally legitimate for the state to do so.
We usually react to this philosophic/pragmatic disparity by saying, "I don't agree with the law, but that's the law." We then go about changing that law in the political arena.
Database:
Preexistence should not be a criteria by which we elevate the importance of one right and in the converse, devalue some other right.
Ken H:
Is that not the current situation with the First and Fourth Amendments vs the Second?
My comments were given from a perspective of philosophy. Your description of the uneven treatment of the 1st and 4th vs 2nd ammendments is a practical issue of government and law. Is their treatment is unequal? Yes. Do I think that's right? No. However, the unequal treatment is certainly not based on whether the issues in the respective ammendments preexisted the BOR.
What are your thoughts on whether USSC should incorporate the Second as well?
The bill of rights is less a list of personal rights, as limitations on the federal government in order to protect individual rights in relation to federal government power. So, I view the incorporation of the BOR by the USSC an overstepping of its power. It is essentially making up laws.
Pragmatically, we have a system of government in which power is delegated to the state via a constitution.
If the people of the state delegate authority to disarm its citizens then it is legally legitimate for the state to do so.
Wrong. The 'people' have no such authority to so delegate, -- under our republican form of Constitutional government.
As Justice Marshal noted in Marbury, 1803:
"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
It defies all common sense to write a Constitution for a United States, then claim that separate States can ignore its Amendments protecting individual rights.
It is constitutionally illegitimate for a state to infringe on our RKBA's.
Isn't a government violating a fundamental right by removing your means of defending yourself and your family?
We usually react to this philosophic/pragmatic disparity by saying, "I don't agree with the law, but that's the law." We then go about changing that law in the political arena.
If your State outlawed gun ownership, would you turn in your firearms?