The Second Amendment Only Applies to the Federal Gov't, NOT State Gov't

[Nik]

You have all forgotten the 14th Amendment. It incorporates, according to the Supreme Court, all the Constitution onto the States.

Now I am MORE then willing to concede the point just as soon as the 14th no longer incorporates ANY other Amendment.

Any other PERFECT example why she does NOT belong on the High Court.

You see the way this works is, if she is right then none of the laws and regulations adopted by the Federal Government in regards civili rights and such can be applied at all to the States. Why? Because the ENTIRE justification for them is that the 14th Amendment incorporated US Federal Constitutional rights on everyone. That would INCLUDE the Second Amendment.

Really? Can you please cite the case where the USSC said that the entire constitution applies to the states?

I don't need to, either it applies or it doesn't. Unless of course your an ignorant turd that thinks somethings apply and some don't just cause you happen to like them.

I'm an "ignorant turd" who happens to think that, because thats what the law is.

The Supreme court has never ruled that the 2nd amendment applies to the states.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Technically she's right. The Constitution wasn't meant to apply to the individual states. It certainly wouldn't hold now, but an argument could be made that the states could ban firearms. I'm guessing, however, that all the state constitution's protect the right to bear arms, and would have to be amended first.

For example, Ohio's Constitution states:

"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."

Granted, the Constitution was not meant to apply to the states, but all that changed with the 14th Amendment which I am sure you know states in part, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviliges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor deny to any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within ots jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Any state denying their citizens their US Constitutionaly guaranteed right to keep and bear arms would clearly be abridging the rights held by all other citizens, and be in violation of the 14th Amendment which made the US Constitution applicable to all the states.

Granted, most, if not all states have some right to arms in their state constitution, but if I am not mistaken, the US Constitution trumps State Constitutions, and with that in mind no state can ban the keeping and bearing of arms by peaceful citizens.

I'm certainly aware of the 14th amendment. I was merely pointing out that the Constitution of the United States was not meant to apply to the states at first.

 

[Yurt]

Really? Can you please cite the case where the USSC said that the entire constitution applies to the states?

I don't need to, either it applies or it doesn't. Unless of course your an ignorant turd that thinks somethings apply and some don't just cause you happen to like them.

I'm an "ignorant turd" who happens to think that, because thats what the law is.

The Supreme court has never ruled that the 2nd amendment applies to the states.

while true, do you believe the scotus, especially after heller, would rule that the 2nd does not apply to the states, only the 1st, 4th, 5th , 6th, and 8th?

 

[Nik]

I don't need to, either it applies or it doesn't. Unless of course your an ignorant turd that thinks somethings apply and some don't just cause you happen to like them.

I'm an "ignorant turd" who happens to think that, because thats what the law is.

The Supreme court has never ruled that the 2nd amendment applies to the states.

while true, do you believe the scotus, especially after heller, would rule that the 2nd does not apply to the states, only the 1st, 4th, 5th , 6th, and 8th?

I don't know what the USSC will rule. But caselaw is based on prior precedent, not guesses about what future courts will rule. Right now, Sotomayor followed precedent in the 2nd amendment case. That precedent may be overruled, but thats not her fault, nor is it a black mark on her record.

 

[garyd]

David that is true to a certain extent. But that also supports the notion that case law will eventually put the second on par with other amendments.

By the way that isn't technically making policy that is enforcing a policy already legislated.

 

[Father Time]

Technically she's right. The Constitution wasn't meant to apply to the individual states. It certainly wouldn't hold now, but an argument could be made that the states could ban firearms. I'm guessing, however, that all the state constitution's protect the right to bear arms, and would have to be amended first.

For example, Ohio's Constitution states:

"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."

Granted, the Constitution was not meant to apply to the states, but all that changed with the 14th Amendment which I am sure you know states in part, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviliges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor deny to any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within ots jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Any state denying their citizens their US Constitutionaly guaranteed right to keep and bear arms would clearly be abridging the rights held by all other citizens, and be in violation of the 14th Amendment which made the US Constitution applicable to all the states.

Granted, most, if not all states have some right to arms in their state constitution, but if I am not mistaken, the US Constitution trumps State Constitutions, and with that in mind no state can ban the keeping and bearing of arms by peaceful citizens.

I almost left out that the question is moot since the Supreme Court has already rulled that the second amendment applies to individuals, and restates their existing right to keep and bear arms.

Yeah but district courts can ignore Supreme court precedent and have it possibly wind it up at the Supreme Court again.

 

[Yurt]

I'm an "ignorant turd" who happens to think that, because thats what the law is.

The Supreme court has never ruled that the 2nd amendment applies to the states.

while true, do you believe the scotus, especially after heller, would rule that the 2nd does not apply to the states, only the 1st, 4th, 5th , 6th, and 8th?

I don't know what the USSC will rule. But caselaw is based on prior precedent, not guesses about what future courts will rule. Right now, Sotomayor followed precedent in the 2nd amendment case. That precedent may be overruled, but thats not her fault, nor is it a black mark on her record.

really........then how did the 9th in Nordyke v. King reach a wholly different opinion? she did not follow precedent as set forth in heller, amazingly, the 9th circus did

 

[Nik]

while true, do you believe the scotus, especially after heller, would rule that the 2nd does not apply to the states, only the 1st, 4th, 5th , 6th, and 8th?

I don't know what the USSC will rule. But caselaw is based on prior precedent, not guesses about what future courts will rule. Right now, Sotomayor followed precedent in the 2nd amendment case. That precedent may be overruled, but thats not her fault, nor is it a black mark on her record.

really........then how did the 9th in Nordyke v. King reach a wholly different opinion? she did not follow precedent as set forth in heller, amazingly, the 9th circus did

No, they didn't.

From the opinion:

The second obstacle facing the Nordykes is incorpora-
tion. That is, we must decide whether the Second Amendment
applies to the states through the Fourteenth, a question that
Heller explicitly left open

They decided it based on their own interpretations, NOT on Heller. As they said, Heller explicitly left that question open.

If you are going to cite stuff to me, at least have the basic courtesy to read the damn opinion so I don't have to go through and correct basic errors you are too lazy to research yourself.

If it is unsettled law, each circuit can settle the law for its area. If there are contradictions, the USSC may take it up.

 

[Yurt]

I don't know what the USSC will rule. But caselaw is based on prior precedent, not guesses about what future courts will rule. Right now, Sotomayor followed precedent in the 2nd amendment case. That precedent may be overruled, but thats not her fault, nor is it a black mark on her record.

really........then how did the 9th in Nordyke v. King reach a wholly different opinion? she did not follow precedent as set forth in heller, amazingly, the 9th circus did

No, they didn't.

From the opinion:

The second obstacle facing the Nordykes is incorpora-
tion. That is, we must decide whether the Second Amendment
applies to the states through the Fourteenth, a question that
Heller explicitly left open

They decided it based on their own interpretations, NOT on Heller. As they said, Heller explicitly left that question open.

If you are going to cite stuff to me, at least have the basic courtesy to read the damn opinion so I don't have to go through and correct basic errors you are too lazy to research yourself.

If it is unsettled law, each circuit can settle the law for its area. If there are contradictions, the USSC may take it up.

as usual you are not seeing the forest through the trees, you're so wrapped up in your partisan bullcrap you can't even see beyond your own nose...

The point is that language
throughout Heller suggests that the right is fundamental by
characterizing it the same way other opinions described enumerated
rights found to be incorporated.

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear
arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

 

[brewerboy]

Technically she's right. The Constitution wasn't meant to apply to the individual states. It certainly wouldn't hold now, but an argument could be made that the states could ban firearms. I'm guessing, however, that all the state constitution's protect the right to bear arms, and would have to be amended first.

For example, Ohio's Constitution states:

"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."

Great post

 

[Nik]

really........then how did the 9th in Nordyke v. King reach a wholly different opinion? she did not follow precedent as set forth in heller, amazingly, the 9th circus did

No, they didn't.

From the opinion:

The second obstacle facing the Nordykes is incorpora-
tion. That is, we must decide whether the Second Amendment
applies to the states through the Fourteenth, a question that
Heller explicitly left open

They decided it based on their own interpretations, NOT on Heller. As they said, Heller explicitly left that question open.

If you are going to cite stuff to me, at least have the basic courtesy to read the damn opinion so I don't have to go through and correct basic errors you are too lazy to research yourself.

If it is unsettled law, each circuit can settle the law for its area. If there are contradictions, the USSC may take it up.

as usual you are not seeing the forest through the trees, you're so wrapped up in your partisan bullcrap you can't even see beyond your own nose...

The point is that language
throughout Heller suggests that the right is fundamental by
characterizing it the same way other opinions described enumerated
rights found to be incorporated.

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear
arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

Its called dicta, son. And you are really trying to affirmatively quote as law something because its "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition"? I thought you were all about following the law as it stands, but you quote that approvingly?

As the 9th circuit said, Heller explicitly leaves the question of whether the 2nd amendment applies to the states open. Case closed. Whatever else you want to read into the dicta is your choice, but its not the holding of Heller. Does the dicta suggest how they may rule in the future? Sure. But thats NOT their present ruling, and hence the circuits have no responsibility to rule that way. In fact you straight out lied when you said Nordyke was following Hellers precedent. It wasn't.

Now, the 9th circuit then went on to rule whether it thought the 2nd amendment applied to the states, and it did think that. But that was new law, it was NOT basing it off of precedent. It used similar reasoning as Heller (as far as the whole history & traditions stuff goes), but it didn't use Heller as precedent.

 

[DavidS]

David that is true to a certain extent. But that also supports the notion that case law will eventually put the second on par with other amendments.

By the way that isn't technically making policy that is enforcing a policy already legislated.

Interracial marriage was not legislated. It was illegal in many states. The Supreme Court overturned that.

 

[Yurt]

this is dicta?

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear
arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

you're a moron. that went directly to the case at hand and was not extraneous....do you even know what dicta means?

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to the County on the Nordykes’
First Amendment and equal protection claims and, although
we conclude that the Second Amendment is indeed incorporated
against the states, we AFFIRM the district court’s
refusal to grant the Nordykes leave to amend their complaint
to add a Second Amendment claim in this case.

face it, you don't have a dog in this fight when it comes to claiming the second does not apply to the states. her ruling basically ignored heller...and focused primarily on the old case...

nordyke repeatedly quoted heller in coming to their conclusion, they also cited heller as overturning their earlier law that would have forced them to come to an opposite conclusion....so you are the lying ballsack who claims nordyke did not follow heller's precedent....and you make fun of where others went to lawschool? moron

 

[Nik]

this is dicta?

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear
arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

you're a moron. that went directly to the case at hand and was not extraneous....do you even know what dicta means?

Yes, that is dicta you dumbshit. The Nation's history and tradition isn't a law, moron.

From the Heller case

With respect to [the nineteenth-century case of U.S. v.] Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois (1886) and Miller v. Texas (1894) reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

They said their later cases said that the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government. If they were going to overturn that, they would have had to specifically done so. They did NOT do so. In fact, actually, what I said about the 9th circuit was wrong. Its not unresolved actually, it was resolved in Presser and Miller.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to the County on the Nordykes’
First Amendment and equal protection claims and, although
we conclude that the Second Amendment is indeed incorporated
against the states, we AFFIRM the district court’s
refusal to grant the Nordykes leave to amend their complaint
to add a Second Amendment claim in this case.

face it, you don't have a dog in this fight when it comes to claiming the second does not apply to the states. her ruling basically ignored heller...and focused primarily on the old case...

Thats not the Supreme Courts decision, dipshit. Thats the 9th circuits decision, and they are free to decide that.

My god. You are incredibly ignorant. Both Heller and the 9th circuit specifically say that Heller does not say that the 2nd amendment applies to the states. And yet you want to ignore that and pretend its just not there?

 

[Nik]

this is dicta?

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear
arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

you're a moron. that went directly to the case at hand and was not extraneous....do you even know what dicta means?

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to the County on the Nordykes’
First Amendment and equal protection claims and, although
we conclude that the Second Amendment is indeed incorporated
against the states, we AFFIRM the district court’s
refusal to grant the Nordykes leave to amend their complaint
to add a Second Amendment claim in this case.

face it, you don't have a dog in this fight when it comes to claiming the second does not apply to the states. her ruling basically ignored heller...and focused primarily on the old case...

nordyke repeatedly quoted heller in coming to their conclusion, they also cited heller as overturning their earlier law that would have forced them to come to an opposite conclusion....so you are the lying ballsack who claims nordyke did not follow heller's precedent....and you make fun of where others went to lawschool? moron

Nordyke quoted Heller because Nordyke used similae reasoning as Heller. Please tell me what law Heller overturned that would have forced them to come to an opposite conclusion....let me guess, it was a 9th circuit case, eh?

Yes. I make fun of where others went to law school. And if you went to law school, I would ask for my money back.

 

[Nik]

Here is someone else who disagrees with you.

Along with many others, I noted yesterday that the Supreme Court expressly left open the question whether the individual right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment should be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment to apply against the states. Here is the relevant passage reserving the issue:

The Volokh Conspiracy - <i>Heller</i> and incorporation of the Second Amendment:

 

[Nik]

Heller Discussion Board: Incorporation and the Need for Further Litigation | SCOTUSblog

But as emphatic as Justice Scalia’s opinion is, however, it leaves open the question of whether the Second Amendment is selectively incorporated so as to apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Another.

 

[Yurt]

why must you show everyone how stupid you are....

they used that conclusion to state that it is a fundamental right you facking moron....what the fuck do you think a fundamental right is? dicta is extraneous thoughts that bare little if any weight on the case at hand....

where did i say i quoted heller....oh wait, i didn't, more stupid assumptions by you.

you can argue till you are blue in the face, but the scotus will rule that the second applies to the states. you have not YET come up with any argument as to how it does not apply except for the old case and because the question remains open. you have yet to address how it is the other bill of rights are applied to the states, but magically the second is not. if it is an individual right, do you honestly think the 14th does not apply? the ninth circuit extensively cited heller in coming to the conclusion that it is a fundamental right, thus invoking the 14th....she ignored heller almost entirely.

you're a lying sack of shit that i said heller said the second applies to the states, last i checked we are arguing whether it SHOULD be. wtf do you think i keep asking you why you think the scotus won't apply to the states you.

 

[Yurt]

Here is someone else who disagrees with you.

Along with many others, I noted yesterday that the Supreme Court expressly left open the question whether the individual right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment should be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment to apply against the states. Here is the relevant passage reserving the issue:

The Volokh Conspiracy - <i>Heller</i> and incorporation of the Second Amendment:

no, they actually agree with me you fucking moron...read the rest and it is almost identical to what i have been arguing with you...

Add to all of this the fact that the Court repeatedly compares the incorporated First Amendment to the unincorporated Second Amendment as a guarantee of important individual rights. A court that believes the Second Amendment is comparable to the hallowed First Amendment is unlikely to leave protection of the right to the mercy of legislative majorities in states and cities.

Whichever specific route the lower courts now choose — the Citizenship Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause — it seems the Supreme Court is providing a road map and is strongly suggesting that the ultimate destination is incorporation.

 

[Nik]

why must you show everyone how stupid you are....

they used that conclusion to state that it is a fundamental right you facking moron....what the fuck do you think a fundamental right is? dicta is extraneous thoughts that bare little if any weight on the case at hand....

A fundamental right is a vague term. It does NOT mean that the states can't infringe on that right.

you can argue till you are blue in the face, but the scotus will rule that the second applies to the states.

Money quote. "They WILL rule that". They may well rule that, BUT THEY HAVE NOT YET RULED IT. So, as of right now, Presser and Miller still apply, and Sotomayor followed those precedents.

you have not YET come up with any argument as to how it does not apply except for the old case and because the question remains open.

Oh, well, cause its an old case it just doesn't apply then. I have a case where the USSC said exactly that the 2nd amendment does NOT apply to states. It has NOT been overturned. Therefore, it is still law. I don't need any other argument other than that.

you have yet to address how it is the other bill of rights are applied to the states, but magically the second is not.

The USSC is inconsistent. As I said, if you don't like it, it really doesn't matter. Thats the way it is.

if it is an individual right, do you honestly think the 14th does not apply? the ninth circuit extensively cited heller in coming to the conclusion that it is a fundamental right, thus invoking the 14th....she ignored heller almost entirely.

According to the USSC so far, it doesn't.

you're a lying sack of shit that i said heller said the second applies to the states, last i checked we are arguing whether it SHOULD be. wtf do you think i keep asking you why you think the scotus won't apply to the states you.

Really? I'm a lying sack of shit? I've been claiming, and my point has been all along, that Heller does not speak on whether the 2nd amendment applies to the states. Now you want to claim that we've been dealing only with whether the 2nd amendment should apply to states?

Let me refresh your memory with a few of your recent quotes.

ace it, you don't have a dog in this fight when it comes to claiming the second does not apply to the states

she did not follow precedent as set forth in heller

(If its merely a SHOULD and not a DOES, then there is no precedent)

From the other thread....

if a state violates my US constitutional rights, who has original jurisdiction to hear that case? are you really advocating that the federal government cannot violate the second amendment, but the states can?

(Which is, of course, the case. Now it wouldn't be the case if Heller MUST be followed, as opposed to SHOULD be followed).