[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: misterwhite outs himself again, claims States can infringe... misterwhite: ---- Keep in mind, the entire Bill of Rights was written to impose limits only on the federal government. The second amendment was written to protect State Militias from federal infringement by protecting the rights of Militia members (the people) to keep and bear the arms of a Militia. But who were "the people" referenced in the second amendment? Not everyone. At the time the second amendment was written, "the people" didn't include women, slaves, blacks, non-citizens, children, or those who didn't own land. "The people" were those with something to lose -- white, adult, male landowners. That's also a description of a Militia member, and that's not a coincidence. Only "the people" were allowed to vote, run for office, or own land. Only they were protected from unreasonable federal searches and seizures. What about everyone else's right to keep and bear arms? That right was protected by each State's constitution (which is why we have different gun laws in each state). Why else would each state have their own constitution if the U.S. Constitution (and Bill of Rights) applied to everyone? The District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) court ruling was very narrow. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment protected the use of handguns in the home for self-defense from federal infringement. That's it. Later, the court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) that it also protected the right against state infringement. So the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is correct that the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment. That doesn't mean those guns are illegal -- just that the second amendment doesn't protect them. tpaine: ------- The District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) court DECISION was very narrow. It applied to the case at hand, and did NOT change our Constitution . The U.S. Supreme Court ISSUED AN OPINION that the second amendment protected the use of handguns in the home for self-defense from infringements ----- So that's NOT "it." It did not change anything --- constitutionally speaking. Later, the court also decided in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) that it also protected the right against state infringement. --- States have never had the power to infringe on the 2nd. So the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is NOT correct that the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment. The Maryland decision doesn't mean those guns are illegal -- just that the Appeals Court is trying to say that second amendment doesn't protect them. -- Which will eventually be overruled by the SCOTUS... Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|