Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

[ QUOTE ]
Earlier posts I've made on this topic: Link, Link.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Should the federal government be able to tell a state (or in this case DC) that it can't ban guns?

[/ QUOTE ]

Better question, isnt there a pretty big difference between "a state" and "DC?" I'm embarrassed to say that I live in DC and I dont know the answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
In this case, its a huge difference. The 2nd Amendment has never been "incorporated" by the Supreme Court, meaning that it does not apply to state and local laws. If the Supreme Court rules that handgun bans are unconstitutional, most gun laws will remain on the books unless they take the additional step of incorporating the 2nd Amendment. Since the case doesn't deal directly with State laws, I doubt they will incorporate the 2nd Amendment here. I also suspect the reason they chose this case to hear over all of the other cases seeking to implement the 2nd (there are a lot of them) is that it deals specically with federal law as opposed to state law.

Regarding the status of DC, the local government is a wholly owned subsidiary of Congress. For most of the nation's history, Congress doubled as the DC City Council. Only recently has Congress allowed a degree of autonomy by allowing DC citizens to elect their own City Council. However, they may alter or abolish the Council by statute.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's very clear why the First Amendment had to be incorporated, but I see nothing in the wording of the Second Amendment that would indicate it would need similar treatment. It says the right shall not be infringed. If it wasn't about guns, no one would argue it doesn't apply to everyone. Like, what's the point of the Bill of Rights, if they only apply to people without a lower form of government. I don't think a law that violated the Fifth Amendment would have flown with the Feds, even before the Civil War.

Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Should the federal government be able to tell a state (or in this case DC) that it can't ban guns?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the federal government should be able to intervene anytime the Constitution is being trampled on. What if a state decided to disregard the 13th?

I'm sure most (reasonable people, not ACists) would agree that if, for example, Tennessee decided to round up all black people and enslave them tomorrow, the federal government should get involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

They can't because the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments all specifically apply to the states.

[/ QUOTE ]

So does the 2nd. Unlike the 1st, the 2nd doesn't say it applies only to Congress.

On the other hand, I don't think the Feds should be involved regardless and wouldn't mind seeing an amendment that let states ban guns if they want and more clearly barred the federal government from doing so (although I dunno how it could be more clear).

Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure most (reasonable people, not ACists)

[/ QUOTE ]

[x] ACist potshot out of left field

Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure most (reasonable people, not ACists)

[/ QUOTE ]

[x] ACist potshot out of left field

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer the term "surgical shot" but thank you for noticing.

Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure most (reasonable people, not ACists)

[/ QUOTE ]

[x] ACist potshot out of left field

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer the term "surgical shot" but thank you for noticing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not hard to notice. For an ACist, these kind of completely random attacks stick out like a sore thumb. You guys are allowed to flame away at us without provocation but if we call anyone a troll, we're gonna get our post deleted.

Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure most (reasonable people, not ACists)

[/ QUOTE ]

[x] ACist potshot out of left field

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer the term "surgical shot" but thank you for noticing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not hard to notice. For an ACist, these kind of completely random attacks stick out like a sore thumb. You guys are allowed to flame away at us without provocation but if we call anyone a troll, we're gonna get our post deleted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had a thread get hijacked the other day, I was just taking that response out of revenge, just needling a little bit. It wasn't aimed personally at you.

Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

[ QUOTE ]
The bill of rights and it's amendments are all agreed as the law of every state in the union. I am just not sure if it's the federal government's role to enforce it. Not sure in the sense that I am just don't know how it would operate in practice of such a blatant disregard for the constitution by a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, only those constitutional provisions deemed incorporated by the 14th amendment apply for sure to the states.

Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure most (reasonable people, not ACists)

[/ QUOTE ]

[x] ACist potshot out of left field

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer the term "surgical shot" but thank you for noticing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not hard to notice. For an ACist, these kind of completely random attacks stick out like a sore thumb. You guys are allowed to flame away at us without provocation but if we call anyone a troll, we're gonna get our post deleted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had a thread get hijacked the other day, I was just taking that response out of revenge, just needling a little bit. It wasn't aimed personally at you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Revenge by trying to hijack someone else's thread? 90% of "AC hijacks" are started by the type of comment you used and look, success!

Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's very clear why the First Amendment had to be incorporated, but I see nothing in the wording of the Second Amendment that would indicate it would need similar treatment. It says the right shall not be infringed. If it wasn't about guns, no one would argue it doesn't apply to everyone. Like, what's the point of the Bill of Rights, if they only apply to people without a lower form of government. I don't think a law that violated the Fifth Amendment would have flown with the Feds, even before the Civil War.

[/ QUOTE ]

The wording of the amendments have nothing to do with it. And you are wrong about the fifth amendment, which has expressly not been incorporated. Many states do not use grand juries for "infamous" crimes, while the federal government must.

Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, states:
“ A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.“

That was 1787. That entire part of the constitution doesn't really apply to 2007.