Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,196 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Seen in another forum...
I understand the 2A debate, but that does not pertain to the states. It only says the fed cannot limit the right to bear arms. States can or should be able to do whatever they want.
: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:
 

·
GPDO Commonlaw Spouse
Joined
·
5,514 Posts
Isn't that what the Civil War was fought over?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,559 Posts
HydroAuto said:
Isn't that what the [s:1gpft721]Civil War[/s:1gpft721] war of Northern Aggression was fought over?
FTFY :)
 

·
I watch the watchers
Joined
·
12,883 Posts
I understand the 2A debate, but that does not pertain to the states. It only says the fed cannot limit the right to bear arms. States can or should be able to do whatever they want.
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
670 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
247 Posts
cpelliott said:
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.
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".
 

·
Seasteading Aficionado
Joined
·
44,896 Posts
MyFred said:
HydroAuto said:
Isn't that what the [s:3801md97]Civil War[/s:3801md97] war of Northern Aggression was fought over?
FTFY :)
: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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,851 Posts
JDcollins78 said:
cpelliott said:
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.
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".
way too much common sense in one post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
247 Posts
patrick4588 said:
JDcollins78 said:
cpelliott said:
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.
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".
way too much common sense in one post.
:lol: Oh, my bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,568 Posts
JDcollins78 said:
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".
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
247 Posts
groats said:
JDcollins78 said:
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".
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.
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?
 

·
GeePeeDoHolic
Joined
·
6,412 Posts
JDcollins78 said:
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".
From Barron v. Baltimore, 1833
John Marshall said:
These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.
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.

John Marshall said:
Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.
"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?

John Marshall said:
if, in every inhibition intended to act on State power, words are employed which directly express that intent; some strong reason must be assigned for departing from this safe and judicious course in framing the amendments before that departure can be assumed. We search in vain for that reason.
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.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top