Posted on 11/07/2023 12:24:56 PM PST by Red Badger
If a law is ambiguous then you have to look at the intent of the ratifiers.
You need to read about the intent of Madison’s writing the first 8 amendments. It was to succor the anti-federalists who were afraid the new central government would become despotic. Limiting the states in the 2nd amendment would do just the opposite. It would expand the feds’ power to enforce the 2nd Amendment and allow them to regulate gun ownership in the states.
You need to study and learn the original intent of the first 8 amendments as explained in the 9th and 10th amendments.
Didn’t I already say that?
“So what’s the problem?”
I merely pointed put the facts, and passed no judgment one way or the other. Federal law is superior to state and local law when they conflict.
Yeah, well, the counterfeit incorporation doctrine had been tried and found wanting for a lot of reasons, including the Supreme Court decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases a few years after the 14A was ratified.
The Left’s anti-education program seems to have done its work.
I would tie that to an explicit reading of Art 1 Sec 8 for the Fed Congress's Right to enact said law in the first place. If a Federal law grants them a power not authorized by the Constitution, the States have the same rights as "We the People" to tell them to get bent.
The “incorporation doctrine” ran afoul because it allowed for selective incorporation, which created a whole new set of problems. A reasonable review would find that either all of the Constitution would apply, or none of it (in which case the incorporation doctrine could only be seen as a fiction).
Our esteemed legislators have gotten used to passing senatus consultum ultimum to authorize magistrates to break the law, which was one of the main reasons the Roman Republic became a dictatorship. Ironically, it was Cicero who concocted the legal justification for this deprivation of rights under Roman law.
“If a Federal law grants them a power not authorized by the Constitution, the States have the same rights as ‘We the People’ to tell them to get bent.”
I hear what you are saying.
However, the People and the States, through their representatives in Congress (the House for the People, and the Senate for the States), act on behalf of the People and the States, for good or ill. That is a republic. Congress is empowered by the People and the States to enact laws that comport with the Constitution.
Truly there is nothing new under the sun.
You might want to look at the Fourteenth Amendment. I think it mentions "privileges and immunities" of United States citizens. There was a need to address tyranny of some states against recently emancipated people.
Also, the Dred Scott decision very clearly describes that Dred Scott, if declared a free man once he entered a free state, would be entitled to carry a firearm. There was no consideration of whether a state could deny a free man the right to bear arms. State's attempting to disarm their own citizens is a relatively recent development.
That doesn't make it correct.
The clear language of the Second Amendment is a general prohibition of something. There is NO language in it that makes it specific to the Federal government.
Now you can bloviate, and pound that table, and try to hold yourself up as an unquestioned expert if you like, but it just doesn't work.
You need to study and learn
Your assumption that I and others here have not done so is both incorrect and insufferably arrogant.
” “The only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun,” Justice Department Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices on Tuesday at the start of nearly 100 minutes of arguments.”
True. If the woman has a gun she won’t end up dead.
“Gun Rights are NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE. Gun rights are a STATES’ ISSUE!!!”
In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court clarified that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments.
Gun rights are rights. Period.
I haven't bothered to read the excerpt here, but will be perusing the entirety tonight.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this account.
Real simple: if they are “too dangerous” to have a gun, then they are too dangerous to walk the streets, a fact that should be determined in a trial.
The man in this case should have been in jail long before they arrested him for a firearms violation.
Who then protects our inalienable rights, if you say those are not enshrined in the constitution and bill of rights?
The camel’s nose is under the tent.
You’re next.
Infringement; A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract, or right. Used especially of invasions of the rights secured by patents, copyrights, and trademarks.
Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Edition
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.