McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) (individual right to bear arms) is unconstitutional. It must be overturned.

[Stormy Daniels]

The case was wrongly decided. It just be overturned. There is no deeply held tradition in the United States that states cannot restrict citizens keeping and bearing arms.

Prior to the McDonald decision, the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government. The power to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms was a power reserved by the states. In McDonald, the court created something out of think air that did not exist before, discarding states' rights in the process. The court said, for the first time ever, that all of a sudden the restrictions on the federal government under the 2nd amendment, are also restrictions on the states.

This is clearly NOT in keeping with the deeply held traditions of the United States. This is brand new, out of nowhere. In fact, going all the way back United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) and further back to Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), the Supreme Court recognized that the Bill of Rights did not limit the states, only the federal government.

So the decision in McDonald is contrary to the deeply rooted traditions of the United States, which means it is wrong, according to Justices Alito and Thomas. It must be overturned.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

United States v. Cruikshank: The right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution and is not solely based on the Second Amendment, which exists to prevent Congress from infringing the right.

supreme.justia.com

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore: The Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government rather than state or local governments, since there is no textual evidence to support a different view.

supreme.justia.com

 

[scruffy]

lol

I'd like to see the gubmint - ANY gubmint - try to disarm me. That would be first class comedy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I guess SOMEONE has never heard of 14th Amendment.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I guess SOMEONE has never heard of 14th Amendment.

The 14th amendment only applies to ex slaves. Besides, Cruikshank was after the 14th amendment was ratified and firmly found that it did not apply to state governments.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The case was wrongly decided. It just be overturned. There is no deeply held tradition in the United States that states cannot restrict citizens keeping and bearing arms.

Prior to the McDonald decision, the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government. The power to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms was a power reserved by the states. In McDonald, the court created something out of think air that did not exist before, discarding states' rights in the process. The court said, for the first time ever, that all of a sudden the restrictions on the federal government under the 2nd amendment, are also restrictions on the states.

This is clearly NOT in keeping with the deeply held traditions of the United States. This is brand new, out of nowhere. In fact, going all the way back United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) and further back to Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), the Supreme Court recognized that the Bill of Rights did not limit the states, only the federal government.

So the decision in McDonald is contrary to the deeply rooted traditions of the United States, which means it is wrong, according to Justices Alito and Thomas. It must be overturned.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

United States v. Cruikshank: The right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution and is not solely based on the Second Amendment, which exists to prevent Congress from infringing the right.

supreme.justia.com

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore: The Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government rather than state or local governments, since there is no textual evidence to support a different view.

supreme.justia.com

Shall not be infringed.
Sorry.

 

[excalibur]

The case was wrongly decided. It just be overturned. There is no deeply held tradition in the United States that states cannot restrict citizens keeping and bearing arms.

Prior to the McDonald decision, the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government. The power to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms was a power reserved by the states. In McDonald, the court created something out of think air that did not exist before, discarding states' rights in the process. The court said, for the first time ever, that all of a sudden the restrictions on the federal government under the 2nd amendment, are also restrictions on the states.

This is clearly NOT in keeping with the deeply held traditions of the United States. This is brand new, out of nowhere. In fact, going all the way back United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) and further back to Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), the Supreme Court recognized that the Bill of Rights did not limit the states, only the federal government.

So the decision in McDonald is contrary to the deeply rooted traditions of the United States, which means it is wrong, according to Justices Alito and Thomas. It must be overturned.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

United States v. Cruikshank: The right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution and is not solely based on the Second Amendment, which exists to prevent Congress from infringing the right.

supreme.justia.com

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore: The Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government rather than state or local governments, since there is no textual evidence to support a different view.

supreme.justia.com

Barron was decided prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment. After the certification of the ratification of the 14th, the Bill of Rights was incorporated into the states over the decades, and particularly in the 20th century, the incorporation doctrine. Cruikshank notwithstanding.

Also, in the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney pointed out that if blacks were citizens they would then have the same right as whites to walk about with arms for their protection.

This is furthered in the reasoning for the 14th Amendment when the former Confederate States were disarming the freedmen. Congress saw this as violating the rights of the freedmen and felt it necessary to pass the 14th Amendment for the states to ratify.

 

[excalibur]

The 14th amendment only applies to ex slaves. Besides, Cruikshank was after the 14th amendment was ratified and firmly found that it did not apply to state governments.

Not true. The Court has basically overturned Cruikshank.

 

[excalibur]

The case was wrongly decided. It just be overturned. There is no deeply held tradition in the United States that states cannot restrict citizens keeping and bearing arms.

Prior to the McDonald decision, the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government. The power to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms was a power reserved by the states. In McDonald, the court created something out of think air that did not exist before, discarding states' rights in the process. The court said, for the first time ever, that all of a sudden the restrictions on the federal government under the 2nd amendment, are also restrictions on the states.

This is clearly NOT in keeping with the deeply held traditions of the United States. This is brand new, out of nowhere. In fact, going all the way back United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) and further back to Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), the Supreme Court recognized that the Bill of Rights did not limit the states, only the federal government.

So the decision in McDonald is contrary to the deeply rooted traditions of the United States, which means it is wrong, according to Justices Alito and Thomas. It must be overturned.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

United States v. Cruikshank: The right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution and is not solely based on the Second Amendment, which exists to prevent Congress from infringing the right.

supreme.justia.com

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore: The Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government rather than state or local governments, since there is no textual evidence to support a different view.

supreme.justia.com

And you obviously did not read the Thomas decision.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Not true. The Court has basically overturned Cruikshank.

Yes, they did. In McDonald. Which was wrongly decided and in need of being overturned.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

After the certification of the ratification of the 14th, the Bill of Rights was incorporated into the states over the decades, and particularly in the 20th century, the incorporation doctrine.

So you mean to tell me that the meaning of the constitution was changed over time? What kind of liberal nonsense is that?

 

[whitehall]

Is this a convoluted response (by the left) to the S.C. about RvW? God help us if there is a generation so ignorant that they think (hope) that the Bill of Rights or the rest of the Constitution can be "overturned".

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Shall not be infringed.

....by the federal government.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

....by the federal government.

Right. Which is why it says shall not be infringed by the federal government...........right?

What about the 1st Amendment? Does that only apply to the federal government?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

....by the federal government.

Fourth Amendment​

Fourth Amendment Explained


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Can state and local governments commit unreasonable searches and seizures?
Issue warrants with no probable cause?

 

[fncceo]

The case was wrongly decided. It just be overturned. There is no deeply held tradition in the United States that states cannot restrict citizens keeping and bearing arms.

 

[fncceo]

....by the federal government.

"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."

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Can state and local governments commit unreasonable searches and seizures?
Issue warrants with no probable cause?

Why yes. Yes they can.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why yes. Yes they can.

Cool.

Post your two favorite cases of them doing it successfully in the open.

 

[BackAgain]

Yes, they did. In McDonald. Which was wrongly decided and in need of being overturned.

McDonald was properly decided.

 

[OKTexas]

The case was wrongly decided. It just be overturned. There is no deeply held tradition in the United States that states cannot restrict citizens keeping and bearing arms.

Prior to the McDonald decision, the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government. The power to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms was a power reserved by the states. In McDonald, the court created something out of think air that did not exist before, discarding states' rights in the process. The court said, for the first time ever, that all of a sudden the restrictions on the federal government under the 2nd amendment, are also restrictions on the states.

This is clearly NOT in keeping with the deeply held traditions of the United States. This is brand new, out of nowhere. In fact, going all the way back United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) and further back to Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), the Supreme Court recognized that the Bill of Rights did not limit the states, only the federal government.

So the decision in McDonald is contrary to the deeply rooted traditions of the United States, which means it is wrong, according to Justices Alito and Thomas. It must be overturned.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

United States v. Cruikshank: The right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution and is not solely based on the Second Amendment, which exists to prevent Congress from infringing the right.

supreme.justia.com

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore: The Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government rather than state or local governments, since there is no textual evidence to support a different view.

supreme.justia.com

Yeah, that notion was kind of shot to hell yesterday. But hey, feel free to shed all the tears you wish.

.

.