Holy Moley Batman...

Discussion in 'Firearm Related' started by BG_Atl, Oct 26, 2010.

  1. BG_Atl

    BG_Atl Active Member

    2,161
    18
    38
    Seen in another forum...
    :shakehead:

    I guess this person would be okay with the Barney Fife style California carry - or perhaps NY's only if
    you are rich and famous enough mind set... :screwy:
    Could this also be true of the 1st and 4th Amendments ? What ever the state wants to do so long
    as the Fed's don't interfere...

    Yikes :shock:
     
  2. HydroAuto

    HydroAuto GPDO Commonlaw Spouse

    5,514
    0
    36
    Isn't that what the Civil War was fought over?
     

  3. 45_Fan

    45_Fan Well-Known Member

    7,953
    41
    48
    Somebody needs a link to McDonald. Sounds like they read Heller though.
     
  4. MyFred

    MyFred Banned

    2,559
    0
    0
    FTFY :)
     
  5. Owl

    Owl New Member

    2,956
    0
    0
    Ditto Fred.
     
  6. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    Major reading and understanding fail on his part. If you want to get technical it's the First Amendment that says 'Congress shall make no law ..." which would leave the States free to impose whatever restrictions they desired, even establishing official religions. If I recall my History correctly, there were indeed official state religions at the time the Constitution was ratified. If you didn't want to be a dues paying member of the CoTFSM, then you had best move out of Pennsyltucky.

    The Second Amendment has no such restriction, it says ... shall not be infringed." Period, without limitation.

    I wonder if the worthy gentleman know that the majority of states either mirror or approximate the wording in the Second Amendment?
     
  7. cpelliott

    cpelliott New Member

    670
    0
    0
    Until 1868, much of the Bill of Rights did only apply to the feds. The 14th amendment applied most of the remaining rights to the states.
     
  8. JDcollins78

    JDcollins78 New Member

    247
    0
    0
    This has always bothered me. Why would the Founders establish a list of rights that were supposedly so precious and then only work to keep the FEDERAL government from stomping all over them? This just doesn't make sense to me. That is why while I was happy with the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the 2a/14a, I never got why we need "incorporation".
     
  9. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    :righton:

    Regrettably, if they keep pushing, there may be another War of Northern Aggression in the far away future, except there won't be any need to invade, because the troops are already here.
     
  10. patrick4588

    patrick4588 New Member

    1,851
    0
    0
    way too much common sense in one post.
     
  11. JDcollins78

    JDcollins78 New Member

    247
    0
    0
    :lol: Oh, my bad.
     
  12. groats

    groats New Member

    2,568
    0
    0
    The states were more important than any "federal" government at that time - hence the "United States" part of that name.
    I suspect the founding fathers thought they had the right to limit their own federal powers, but had little right to interfere with the powers of the states that created (and supposedly, could dissolve) the fed.
     
  13. JDcollins78

    JDcollins78 New Member

    247
    0
    0
    I get what you are saying, however if the States were more important (had more power) then the Federal government, then why would there not be concern of the States infringing on the peoples' rights? I mean, if you are going to take a shot at preserving liberty, why not go all the way?
     
  14. Rugerer

    Rugerer GeePeeDoHolic

    6,385
    70
    48
    From Barron v. Baltimore, 1833
    http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1833/1833_0
    Opinion at http://supreme.justia.com/us/32/243/case.html

    Basically, my take on the opinion is, it's a lot easier to change a state government than it is to get a US Constitutional amendment. If you want to live a certain way in your state, change your state. It's your "own government" after all. There was also serious opposition to giving the Federal government any more power than it had to have "to form a more perfect Union", i.e. all the power belongs to the state as much as possible.

    "Words mean things," as many like to say.

    Personally, it really seems to me that if you're going to define your philosophy and identify some set of rights as inalienable from your person, it should be obvious that's meant to apply to any governing body. But yet, when parts of the Constitution explicitly say "no state shall" and other parts don't, it gets harder for me to say "it's obvious." The Framers "obviously" show they know how to use words to limit the states. If they don't use the words, must they have meant not to involve the states?

    When the Fourteenth came along to say "no State shall ... abridge the privileges and immunities," that should have been the end of it, right then and there. After all, they used the magic words.