[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote] NickViar wrote:
-The Second Amendment means that no state gun controls were legal.[/quote]
Not prior to the Fourteenth Amendment it didn’t mean that. (And maybe not even after the Fourteenth Amendment. But certainly not before. )
[/quote]
It certainly did. Whether those in power cared is a different issue.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote] NickViar wrote:
-The Second Amendment means that no state gun controls were legal.[/quote]
Not prior to the Fourteenth Amendment it didn’t mean that. (And maybe not even after the Fourteenth Amendment. But certainly not before. )
[/quote]
It certainly did. Whether those in power cared is a different issue.[/quote]
No it did not. Furthermore, this is basic constitutional law 101 and I’ve never even heard of anyone suggesting that the Bill of Rights applied to the States prior to the fourteenth and incorporation doctrine. Why are you claiming otherwise?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote] NickViar wrote:
-The Second Amendment means that no state gun controls were legal.[/quote]
Not prior to the Fourteenth Amendment it didn’t mean that. (And maybe not even after the Fourteenth Amendment. But certainly not before. )
[/quote]
It certainly did. Whether those in power cared is a different issue.[/quote]
No it did not. Furthermore, this is basic constitutional law 101 and I’ve never even heard of anyone suggesting that the Bill of Rights applied to the States prior to the fourteenth and incorporation doctrine. Why are you claiming otherwise?[/quote]
The Second Amendment says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The Tenth Amendment says, “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.” If a right clearly reserved to the people in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights is not a right of the people, then what is? If not, then why would “or to the people” be part of the Tenth Amendment?
^^
It is a right of the people. A right the bill of rights protected from the federal government. The BoR was intended to appease anti-federalists who did not want a powerful federal government.
Anyway, as I said, I’ve never even heard of anyone making the claim that you are making. Please show me some evidence to substantiate your claim that the BoR applied to state governments prior to the 14th. Surely you have proof right? Quoting the text of the tenth and insisting it means what you say it means does not constitute evidence. Show me someone else, anyone from any time, who makes the same claim you are making.
[quote] NickViar:
It certainly did. Whether those in power cared is a different issue.[/quote]
“Those in power” wrote the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Now, show me where the authors intended that the Bill of Rights to apply to and restrict states from handling firearm possession, regulation, etc.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
I’m no scholar, but it is my understanding that the Supremacy Clause would render any state law that violates the Bill of Rights unconstitutional.
[/quote]
Correct… if and only if the Bill of Rights applied to the states. Prior to the Civil War and the resulting Reconstruction Amendments, the Bill of Rights (in its entirety) had no application to the states or their laws. The limitations were strictly on the federal government. And therefore, the Supremacy Clause wasn’t triggered.
So, the Second Amendment was only a restriction on the United States Congress to pass laws that ran afoul of the right to keep and bear arms. States were free to pass any laws they wanted regarding arms.[/quote]
Just when I thought I had heard all of the arguments against the 2nd, someone comes along and surprises me.
I do not believe you have this correct. If you did, wouldn’t they have called it the Bill of Recommendations or Bill of Good Ideas?
I’m not familiar enough with Constitutional law to really argue it, but I don’t think you are either.
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
I’m no scholar, but it is my understanding that the Supremacy Clause would render any state law that violates the Bill of Rights unconstitutional.
[/quote]
Correct… if and only if the Bill of Rights applied to the states. Prior to the Civil War and the resulting Reconstruction Amendments, the Bill of Rights (in its entirety) had no application to the states or their laws. The limitations were strictly on the federal government. And therefore, the Supremacy Clause wasn’t triggered.
So, the Second Amendment was only a restriction on the United States Congress to pass laws that ran afoul of the right to keep and bear arms. States were free to pass any laws they wanted regarding arms.[/quote]
Just when I thought I had heard all of the arguments against the 2nd, someone comes along and surprises me.
I do not believe you have this correct. If you did, wouldn’t they have called it the Bill of Recommendations or Bill of Good Ideas?
I’m not familiar enough with Constitutional law to really argue it, but I don’t think you are either.
[/quote]
Actually he is. And it’s kind of annoying when some posters(not you) come along and tell people they’re wrong and they don’t know what they’re talking about when they do.
[quote] NickViar wrote:
The Second Amendment says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The Tenth Amendment says, “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.” If a right clearly reserved to the people in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights is not a right of the people, then what is? If not, then why would “or to the people” be part of the Tenth Amendment? [/quote]
You’re not even recognizong the Tenth Amendment language you’re trying to cite (even as the Tenth Amendment is irrelevant here, as Sex Machine noted). The Tenth Amendment reserves all powers not delegated and given up the federal government or prohibited by the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution are states forbidden from exercising their police powers from legislating in the space of firearm possession, regulation, etc. States were (are?) free to define that nature of those rights as they saw fit.
And to say “wrong, the Second Amendment prohibits states from doing so” is begging the question - simply saying it does isn’t evidence that the Framers intended for it to, and there is no credibility interpretation that it did.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^
It is a right of the people. A right the bill of rights protected from the federal government. The BoR was intended to appease anti-federalists who did not want a powerful federal government.
Anyway, as I said, I’ve never even heard of anyone making the claim that you are making. Please show me some evidence to substantiate your claim that the BoR applied to state governments prior to the 14th. Surely you have proof right? Quoting the text of the tenth and insisting it means what you say it means does not constitute evidence. Show me someone else, anyone from any time, who makes the same claim you are making.[/quote]
Do you have an example of state governments trying to restrict the right of white landowners to keep and bear arms prior to the 14th Amendment?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^
It is a right of the people. A right the bill of rights protected from the federal government. The BoR was intended to appease anti-federalists who did not want a powerful federal government.
Anyway, as I said, I’ve never even heard of anyone making the claim that you are making. Please show me some evidence to substantiate your claim that the BoR applied to state governments prior to the 14th. Surely you have proof right? Quoting the text of the tenth and insisting it means what you say it means does not constitute evidence. Show me someone else, anyone from any time, who makes the same claim you are making.[/quote]
Do you have an example of state governments trying to restrict the right of white landowners to keep and bear arms prior to the 14th Amendment?
[/quote]
No. And I have no idea what that has to do with the discussion. We are discussing the BoR applicability prior to the incorporation doctrine and the 14th. It was summed up in the decision, United States v Cruishank, 1875:
…the First and Second Amendments “was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens” and “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” respectively.
You are claiming the opposite and you have not even cited anyone who agrees with you let alone evidence your claim. As I said, this is not a disputed issue. I’ve never even heard of anyone claiming what you are claiming.
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
I’m no scholar, but it is my understanding that the Supremacy Clause would render any state law that violates the Bill of Rights unconstitutional.
[/quote]
Correct… if and only if the Bill of Rights applied to the states. Prior to the Civil War and the resulting Reconstruction Amendments, the Bill of Rights (in its entirety) had no application to the states or their laws. The limitations were strictly on the federal government. And therefore, the Supremacy Clause wasn’t triggered.
So, the Second Amendment was only a restriction on the United States Congress to pass laws that ran afoul of the right to keep and bear arms. States were free to pass any laws they wanted regarding arms.[/quote]
Just when I thought I had heard all of the arguments against the 2nd, someone comes along and surprises me.
I do not believe you have this correct. If you did, wouldn’t they have called it the Bill of Recommendations or Bill of Good Ideas?
I’m not familiar enough with Constitutional law to really argue it, but I don’t think you are either.
[/quote]
Yeah, lol, TB knows his shit.
[quote] SexMachine wrote:
(text)[/quote]
And as early as 1833, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to states in Barron v. Baltimore. The commonsense ruling was hailed as a victory for states’ rights, which it was.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote] NickViar wrote:
The Second Amendment says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The Tenth Amendment says, “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.” If a right clearly reserved to the people in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights is not a right of the people, then what is? If not, then why would “or to the people” be part of the Tenth Amendment? [/quote]
You’re not even recognizong the Tenth Amendment language you’re trying to cite (even as the Tenth Amendment is irrelevant here, as Sex Machine noted). The Tenth Amendment reserves all powers not delegated and given up the federal government or prohibited by the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution are states forbidden from exercising their police powers from legislating in the space of firearm possession, regulation, etc. States were (are?) free to define that nature of those rights as they saw fit.
And to say “wrong, the Second Amendment prohibits states from doing so” is begging the question - simply saying it does isn’t evidence that the Framers intended for it to, and there is no credibility interpretation that it did.[/quote]
So why does the Tenth Amendment end with “or to the people”? If only the state and federal governments have rights, why include that?
[quote] NickViar wrote:
So why does the Tenth Amendment end with “o the people”? If only the state and federal governments have rights, why include that? [/quote]
The Tenth Amendment reserves the powers of the states or the people. As in, along with the states, “the people” retain their power to enact, legislate, etc.
There is nothing confusing about this, but most importantly, it doesn’t “nationalize” the Second Amendment, and it isn’t relevant.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Do you have an example of state governments trying to restrict the right of white landowners to keep and bear arms prior to the 14th Amendment?
[/quote]
No. And I have no idea what that has to do with the discussion. We are discussing the BoR applicability prior to the incorporation doctrine and the 14th. It was summed up in the decision, United States v Cruishank, 1875:
…the First and Second Amendments “was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens” and “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” respectively.
You are claiming the opposite and you have not even cited anyone who agrees with you let alone evidence your claim. As I said, this is not a disputed issue. I’ve never even heard of anyone claiming what you are claiming.[/quote]
Who knows how it would have been interpreted had a law violated the rights of the majority and not just blacks?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
But were the judges who issued that decision right?
Were they echoing original intent?
It’s not good enough for me to point to a court case almost 95 years after the BoR was issued and say “this proves everything.” It does help, grant you, but courts have got many, many, many things wrong over the years.[/quote]
Agreed, just because court says it, it isn’t automatically correct. But where is there a comparable source - institution, assembly, court, individual - who supports that original intent was that the Second Amendment applied to the states?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
We are discussing the BoR applicability prior to the incorporation doctrine and the 14th. It was summed up in the decision, United States v Cruishank, 1875:
[/quote]
But were the judges who issued that decision right?
Were they echoing original intent?
It’s not good enough for me to point to a court case almost 95 years after the BoR was issued and say “this proves everything.” It does help, grant you, but courts have got many, many, many things wrong over the years.[/quote]
See what tb said. I’ve never heard an opposing opinion. I’ve never heard of anyone suggesting the BoR applied to state governments prior to the 14th/incorporation.