Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all

[ElliotR]

[ 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.

[Vagos]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

[x] ACist potshot out of left field

[DblBarrelJ]

[ 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.

[abatis]

[ QUOTE ]
Poster: elwoodblues

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

[/ QUOTE ]

The Constitution promises to the states to forever provide a Republican form of government. The classical republic the framers embraced has as an inseparable component, an armed citizenry. Those armed citizens comprise the means of security for both the state and the federal government, thus the national government can not allow a state to disarm those citizens the nation relies on. See US v Presser:

<ul type="square">" It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."[/list]
Notice this protection of the citizen's arms exists without any reference to the 2nd Amendment and is immune to any argument centered on incorporation.

[wacki]

In my last post had a few typos:

[ QUOTE ]
A revolting army attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government would greatly benefit another it from some form of government help.

[/ QUOTE ]

was supposed to be:

[ QUOTE ]
A revolting army attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government would greatly benefit from some form of government help.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry about that. Have a good Thanksgiving AndyFox.

[andyfox]

That's not what the 2nd amendment says.

[iron81]

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.

[Scary_Tiger]

[ 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.

[ElliotR]

[ 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.

[jogsxyz]

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.