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

[OKTexas]

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.

Tell that to all the fucking anchor babies of illegals.

.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

....by the federal government.

Read the G-D 14th Amendment you dipshit!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. It was overturned you fucking moron!

 

[excalibur]

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

You poor thing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Mostly the case was all about getting rid of the sense of a "collective right". There's no such thing as a collective right, and as such McDonald is a correct decision.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Mostly the case was all about getting rid of the sense of a "collective right". There's no such thing as a collective right, and as such McDonald is a correct decision.

That....no. Heller was the case that dealt with that. But Heller was in D.C. which is strictly federal jurisdiction. McDonald dealt with whether the 2nd amendment applied to the states via the 14th amendment. Prior to McDonald, the prevailing precedent said no.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

If it only applies to ex-slaves why do gays use it and allowed to use it for marriage rights

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That....no. Heller was the case that dealt with that. But Heller was in D.C. which is strictly federal jurisdiction. McDonald dealt with whether the 2nd amendment applied to the states via the 14th amendment. Prior to McDonald, the prevailing precedent said no.

What precedence are you referring to? Miller?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why yes. Yes they can.

Post some proof

 

[BluesLegend]

The case was wrongly decided. It just be overturned.

LMAO, the SCOTUS and Constitutional scholars say you are wrong.

 

[BluesLegend]

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".

The left is infinity triggered after RvW.

 

[Jaxson]

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

So all Federal laws don't apply to the States? So why have a Federal government if their laws don't apply to anyone?