The document says nothing about restrictions by just the feds, it says the rights of the people cannot be infringed.
Its amazing you are arguing in favor of government power.
And btw, if this is all a snark attempt by a libertarian trying to be all smart, go **** yourself. We have enough fake assholes on this site.
No sir. First off that's not even close to what I said.
Second, these ten amendments include declaratory clauses and restrictive clauses.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
You should read the entire transcript for the bill of rights amendments, not just the amendments. The restrictive clauses in the bill of rights apply restrictions to the federal government not to the states, except and unless it states that the restriction applies to the states. More particularly the 10th stated that "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." IOW if they 2nd amendment were to be applied to the feds and the states as you so imagine, then the 2nd would have had to say "shall not be infringed by congress or the states." But clearly it does not and clearly the states have been restricting our right to keep and bear arms before, during, and after the bill of rights were signed into law.
I'm not being a fake asshole, I'm a gun proponent that's telling you a fact about the 2nd amendment that not to many understand.
If it isn't in the document, what bearing does it have besides a view into intent, which is debatable.
And if you are not a fake, then you are not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. You are a statist. Not as bad as Farkey over there, but in the same ballpark.
Uhmm, listen nimrod, can I call you nimrod? Not only is it in the document, I quoted the document. Not only does the portion I cited have bearing, it is also well understood that the bill of rights are not really a listing of rights but rather a listing of restrictive clauses that apply to the federal government to restrict the power of the federal government.
I know it's hard to believe that you don't know everything about such an important document, but there it is nonetheless.
I'm not a statist. Not by any measure.
Do you have a right to keep and bear arms? Yes. That is a natural right. That natural right can't be taken from you by the federal government, per the 2nd amendment. However, each individual state, and cities, and private owners can restrict this right within their jurisdiction.
Do I like that states can do this? No. But that's why we have a republic. Do I like that individual can restrict it within their property? Yes within reason.
The 2nd amendment, unlike the first, does not specifically list congress as being unable to impact what is in the amendment. It gives the people the right, a right they have as US citizens. As the Federal Constitution has supremacy, it overrides any State law or constitutional statute that says contrary.
The 1st and and 4th at a minimum have been incorporated via the 14th amendment, and slowly the 2nd is as well. If not, how are decisions such as Heller and McDonald even possible?
Apology for the long answer.
No. You are upside down again. Federal laws override state laws. All restrictions on federal lawmakers do not apply necessarily to restrictions on state lawmakers. Try to keep up. The restrictions that do apply are explicitly listed. A restriction on lawmakers making certain types of laws is not the same as a certain type of law.
Unless an amendment restricting the power of the federal government specifically mentions states it does not apply as a restriction to the states. This is why it has ALWAYS BEEN THE PERVUE OF THE STATES TO DO WRITE LAWS RESTRICTING GUN OWNERSHIP. You are implying that the thousands of laws in the various states that currently restrict gun ownership are all unconstitutional and the states have been just getting away with it for hundreds of years. After the 14th due process clause, this may be true but it has not gone to the court yet.
This is the essentially the same problem you had the other day when you could not tell the difference between stopping someone from harming others and harming others. Not sure why you think these are the same thing.
WRT to incorporation by the 14th. The 14th explicitly states that the states also can not restrict life, liberty, or property without due process. But this clause is somewhat vague in the minds of the court. Thus, through incorporation of various elements of the prior amendments the court has pontificated/specified what life, liberty, and property means with respect to the restrictions on the federal government for restricting same.
For example, your religious choices are a part of life and liberty... so the states can't make any laws respecting establishment of or prohibiting religion. There ya go.
On the issue of property.. one could argue a gun is property. Thus in theory, the scotus could in fact incorporate property through the 2nd amendment as a type of property that the states are not allowed to restrict, "AT ALL," or at least not without due process. But as far as I know no state has been dumb enough, yet, to prosecute someone without due process for not adhering to their restrictions on said property (guns). Thus no harm no foul, and the SCOTUS won't listen to the case till harm by a state is established by the lower courts.
For example, if the guy's a criminal, not letting a known criminal have a gun.. due process. However if you are not insane, you are a good standing citizen, you know how to use a gun, well then they don't have an excuse to say due process then do they? Thus NYC takes your gun cause that's the law, then apologizes and gives it back, so you can't claim harm to the SCOTUS.
.....Ok then (of course that is now true in most states.....how about that?)
