Rigby5
Diamond Member
That was true until the incorporation doctrine. States must now comply with every amendment to the Constitution. If they have to comply with the 1st Amendment, then they have to comply with the 2nd Amendment.We must restore constitutional government...
Gun-rights advocates sue Pennsylvania over 'ghost gun' rule, say state is classifying 'a hunk of metal' as a firearm
While I agree individuals must have firearm rights the state should not be infringing upon, when it comes to state legislation like this, it is the state constitution that has to be used, not the federal constitution.
The federal Bill of Rights really just restricts the federal government, not state or local government.
After the Civil War, and the 14th amendment, there has been a trend towards more supreme court defense of individual rights, but the 4th and 5th amendments create more of a gun rights penumbra than the 2nd does.
I am not really going to disagree with that, but it is not quite that explicit.
If states had not violated the rights of individuals in a wholesale matter after the Civil War, then the whole 14th amendment and incorporation would never have happened or been needed. And the whole process of looking for individual rights that were the inspiration for the Bill of Rights is a vague and tenuous task.
For example, while the 2nd amendment essentially bans all federal firearms laws, it was not intended to ban all local or state firearms laws. For example, there is no reason to believe the 2nd amendment should prevent states from imposing a 18 year old age limit on those buying or owning firearms. So sure, I agree there is an individual right that was the inspiration for the 2nd amendment, but the ban on federal firearm jurisdiction is far more explicit and complete as compared to how states and municipalities should be restricted.