According to the Constitution, gun control is ENTIRELY a state issue

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS incorporated the 2d Amendment under the 14th in McDonald.

What you gun nutters believe does not matter.

You have it ass backwards and upside down.

The SCOTUS reinforced the Second by backing it up with the Fourteenth.

Sheesh. Get a grip.

That's one possible consideration, other than the feds now can overrule states on their laws in support of the 2d, which is the meaning of what I wrote above.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The bill of rights does not give the federal government any power to modify or restrict it but it does limit the states from limiting or restricting those rights. The tenth amendment states that if the power is not granted to the federal government and it is restricted from the states then that power remains in the hands of the people - individually. In short the rights protected by the bill of rights cannot be restricted or limited by anyone other than the individual in the case that one infringes on the rights of another and in doing so loses his individual rights. Felons can't vote, own guns, expect fourth amendment protection or even free speach. They have lost their rights because of the crime they committed. After ten years of good conduct they can apply to have the restrictions removed.

Look up the 14th Amendment and look up incorporation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

McDonald changed that gang, when Roberts' court incorporated the 2d Amendment under the due process provision of the 14th Amendment. The feds can now overrule any state law.

It means that the 2nd acts as restricition upon state and local governments in the same way that it restricts the federal governement.
Why in the name of Alan Gura would any pro 2nd amend advocate not like McDonald v Chicago?

The SCotUS always had the power to overrule state courts - the incorporation of the 2nd against actions by the states thru the 14th did not change this in any way.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You simply do not your history, M14 Shooter. McDonald incorporated the 2d Amendment for the first time in McDonald. You simply cannot find sufficient evidence to the contrary.

 

[PaulS1950]

The 14th amendment, as it applies here, simply restates part of the tenth amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people.

Bolded by me.

The 14th amendment does not and cannot give extra powers to the federal government - see the tenth amendment.

Incorporation is too broad a term to try to find a connection to this topic - perhaps you could point me to a narrower range?

 

[tinydancer]

Please note my source:

Judicial Interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment

"Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in pertinent part that:

"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"


Judicial Interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment



This site is maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the Federal Judiciary.

The purpose of this site is to provide information from and about the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government.

 

[legaleagle_45]

The SCotUS always had the power to overrule state courts - the incorporation of the 2nd against actions by the states thru the 14th did not change this in any way.

The entire Bill of Rights was considered a limitation on Federal power, not state power. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 ( 1833). Thus, a state could legally restrict freedom of speech, the press etc and not be in violation of the 1st Amend , because the 1st Amend all by itself is not a restriction on state power.

This changed with the passage of the 14th amend and a doctorine known as selective incorporation, wherein the restrictions on federal power found in some provisions of the Bill of Rights were found to be binding upon state and local governments through the due process clause of the 14th. But not all of the provisions found in the Bill of Rights are binding upon state action. For example the requirement of a jury trial in civil cases involving more than $20 was specifically held not to be incorporated as against state and local governements.

McDonald was the first case to address the question of whether the restrictions on government power found in the 2nd apply to state an local governments via the due process clause of the 14th. The McDonald Court found that those restrictions did apply to state and local action and nullified the Chicago ordinance banning handguns as a consequence of that decision.

 

[PaulS1950]

The tenth amendment says the same thing - only it says that the feds can't touch our rights either. All our rights are out of bounds for any governmental action.
Can you tell me where it gives any power not granted by the constitution to the federal government?

 

[tinydancer]

The 14th amendment, as it applies here, simply restates part of the tenth amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people.

Bolded by me.

The 14th amendment does not and cannot give extra powers to the federal government - see the tenth amendment.

Incorporation is too broad a term to try to find a connection to this topic - perhaps you could point me to a narrower range?

I'm no judicial scholar. Far from it. But everything I have read about the Fourteenth points to this Amendment's purpose being to prevent State and local government from denying any right provided by the Constitution to its citizens.

Not to provide more power to the Federal Government.

 

[legaleagle_45]

The tenth amendment says the same thing - only it says that the feds can't touch our rights either. All our rights are out of bounds for any governmental action.
Can you tell me where it gives any power not granted by the constitution to the federal government?

That did not use to be the case with respect to state governments. The states have what is called general police powers and can do anything they want unless it is specifically denied them by the federal Constitution.

Conversely, the feds may only operate under the express powers or those which are "necessary and proper" and even if they exercise an express power, they may not do so in violation of an express restricition. The Bill of Rights is not a grant of power, it is a restriction on power.

 

[PaulS1950]

By definition the body of the constitution served to grant limited powers to the federal government. It also limits some powers from the states thereby leaving those powers not granted to the feds and limited from the states to the people as individuals. It was designed that way but in the last 200+ years the people have not exercised their powers and some have been taken, unlawfully, by the various governments.

That does not mean that we can't again exercise those rights, simply that the various governments will not like it when we do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

By definition the body of the constitution served to grant limited powers to the federal government. It also limits some powers from the states thereby leaving those powers not granted to the feds and limited from the states to the people as individuals. It was designed that way but in the last 200+ years the people have not exercised their powers and some have been taken, unlawfully, by the various governments.

That does not mean that we can't again exercise those rights, simply that the various governments will not like it when we do.

Tinydancer and LegalEagle gave you good and sufficient answers to your questions, PaulS1950.

You may of course have your own opinion, but your opinion does not stand up in court concerning McDonald and the 2d. The 2d now is incorporated in the 14th, which means the states and the feds are in it together. The fed can overrule a state that tries to limit the power of the 2d. SCOTUS is also the final determiner on just what those powers are under the Constitution.

 

[legaleagle_45]

By definition the body of the constitution served to grant limited powers to the federal government. It also limits some powers from the states thereby leaving those powers not granted to the feds and limited from the states to the people as individuals. .

What exactly are the powers which the states are limited from exercising in the original Constitution? They are found primarily in Article I, Sect 10:

Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or
Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit
Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in
Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law
impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any
Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely
necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all
Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be
for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws
shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of
Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any
Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or
engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as
will not admit of delay.

Those are not powers that people have either, but relate primarily to exclusive powers vested in the federal goverment, with some limited exceptions such as "Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Thus even though the states can not wage war by an explicit prohibition found in the Constitution does not mean the individuals are free to do so.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

McDonald changed that gang, when Roberts' court incorporated the 2d Amendment under the due process provision of the 14th Amendment. The feds can now overrule any state law.

It means that the 2nd acts as restricition upon state and local governments in the same way that it restricts the federal governement.

Why in the name of Alan Gura would any pro 2nd amend advocate not like McDonald v Chicago?

Because it's another power grab by the unelected SCOTUS. The constitution gives the scotus no authority to nullify state laws though it does give the states authority to nullify federal laws. Time the states exercised that - in fact some are starting to.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Felons can't vote, own guns, expect fourth amendment protection or even free speach. They have lost their rights because of the crime they committed. After ten years of good conduct they can apply to have the restrictions removed.

HAHAHA. What an ignoramus you are. In most states felons can vote and they certainly have fouth amendment protection and free speech. You have made a fool of yourself again.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The fed can overrule a state that tries to limit the power of the 2d. SCOTUS is also the final determiner on just what those powers are under the Constitution.

Please show us where the constitution says the scotus is final determiner of anything?

 

[legaleagle_45]

Because it's another power grab by the unelected SCOTUS. The constitution gives the scotus no authority to nullify state laws though it does give the states authority to nullify federal laws. Time the states exercised that - in fact some are starting to.

Interesting... Is your opinion limited to state laws or is the whole concept of judicial review objectionable? If just state laws, then surely the supremacy clause and Article III provides the authority necessary. If it is the concept of judicial review, most people believe it is implicit in the grant of "all judicial power" found in Article III. Jefferson thought that as well and expressly gave that as a reason for adding a Bill of Rights in a letter to Madison.

Be that as it may, we have had Judicial Review since Marbury v Madison. The remedy now is an express constitutional amendment negating Marbury v Madison at this point. IMHO

 

[legaleagle_45]

Please show us where the constitution says the scotus is final determiner of anything?

The usual reference is to this:

Article. III.

Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be
vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress
may from time to time ordain and establish.

 

[tinydancer]

Felons can't vote, own guns, expect fourth amendment protection or even free speach. They have lost their rights because of the crime they committed. After ten years of good conduct they can apply to have the restrictions removed.

HAHAHA. What an ignoramus you are. In most states felons can vote and they certainly have fouth amendment protection and free speech. You have made a fool of yourself again.

If you are pro gun rights and the Second Amendment why in heaven's name wouldn't you be all for the Fourteenth Amendment.

AND it was the SCOTUS who overturned District of Columbia and Chicago's gun bans.

I'm not understanding your position on this.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fed can overrule a state that tries to limit the power of the 2d. SCOTUS is also the final determiner on just what those powers are under the Constitution.

Please show us where the constitution says the scotus is final determiner of anything?

Les' see heah: lissen to ShootSpeeders or SCOTUS?

You moron.