So your contention is that personal gun ownership in eighteenth century America was so common that the authors of the Constitution never thought it needed to be specifically guaranteed? If so, I’d say you’re wrong. My understanding is that most Americans didn’t own firearms and that there had been laws prohibiting personal ownership of fireamrs. This was the reason the Constitution explicitly guaranteed the right of personla gun ownership.
There isn’t actually an explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. But in reference to freedom of speech, my personal opinion is that the benefits of free speech outweigh its costs. I don’t feel the same is true of gun ownership.
I disagree. As others have said, the government already has established that it has the power to regulate personal possessions, up to and including banning them entirely.
Unless you’ve been concealing the fact that you’re a federal judge from us, your opinions on what the law should be are immaterial. The law isn’t what you think it should be; it’s what the legislatures and the courts have said it is. And as I wrote above, they’ve already addressed this issue.
This is how simple it should be to understand what the founding fathers meant. Pay particular attention to the last half of this one minute video. Whether or not you agree with the opionion, you should at least respect the simplicity of the interpretation, as the founding father’s certainly would have intended it.
Sorry Cecil, I’ve got to correct you on one part of this recent coumn.
While I think your was a very balanced and correct article, the above quote, I’m sorry is siply wrong.
The legal situtation is in fact very clear. The 2nd ammendment has not been incorporated to the states, as such it has no power over state legislation or city ordanances. The 1st of course has, as such it applies to the states, your comparison is flawed. The 1st and 2nd are not in any way similar in respect towards application to the states.
Hopefulyy this will change.
But I think Justice Scalia said it best, and by best I eman simply and clearly, in the footnotes of the Heller case.
I think Flipbustle needs to spend more time with his dad.
You’re quoting only a small part of Footnote 23.
Here’s what it says, in toto:
That doesn’t answer anything. In 1886 and 1894, the First Amendment didn’t apply to the states. The first hint that it might, for freedom of speech, was in dicta in Gitlow v. New York in 1925. There was no explicit incorporation of any part of the First Amendment was for freedom of the press in 1930. The Fourth Amendment’s unreasonable search and seizure was not incorporated against the states until 1949 (or 1961, because the exclusionary rule wasn’t incorporated until then).
THe footnote merely means that this case hasn’t done the requisite Fourteenth Amendment analysis to determine if the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states, and if it had, would have been dicta anyway, as DC is a federal territory.
Considering the logic employed by Everson v. Board of Education, Cantwell v. Connecticut, Gitlow v. New York, Near v. Minnesota, DeJonge v. Oregon, Edwards v. South Carolina, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, Mapp v. Ohio, Aguilar v. Texas, Ker v. California, Benton v. Maryland, Malloy v. Hogan, and all the rest of the incorporation cases, I can’t quite see how you’d construct an argument to NOT incorporate the Second… but that’s speculation. As the law stands now, the question is unanswered.
I’m sorry but the rest of the footnote does not reverse the sentiment, it simply bolsters it. I really can’t see why you bring it up. Here scalia states that the 2nd has not been incorporated, and they did not rule on that as a result of it not being part of the Heller case.
Incorporation is a requirement for an ammendment to apply to the states. the 2nd has not been incorporated. There is no argument abou tthis.
Should it be? - I believe so. Is their legal precedent to do so - certainly, has it been done - no. So it does not apply, as of today.
I never said that this changed the application of the second ammendment to DC. DC is goverened by federal law, therefore any firearm ban is unconstitutional.
But the Heller case does not overturn bans in NY City, Chicago etc. etc etc.
Saying it is not settled is irrelevant. You could say that about any law, or ammendment, there will continue to be Supreme court rulings, and as long as there is nothing is completely settled.
As it stands today, the 2nd has not been incorporated, the 1st has been incorporated. as such the 2nd does not to the states, and the 1st does.
Certainly the argument can be made that the 14th incorproates ev everything, and I agree. However until the Supreme court says so, it aint so.
By quoting only that small part of Scalia’s footnote, you considerably skewed its meaning. “[These prior cases] reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government” is very, very different from the plain assertion you quoted. Scalia isn’t stating anything of the sort, as he himself remarks in that very footnote that incorporation is “a question not presented by this case.”
Actually, I’m curious about one more thing now: I’m aware of D.C.'s status as a federal district, and the authority of Congress over it, but are the D.C. Council and Mayor’s Office properly considered to be parts of the federal government?
Previous rulings have been that the 2nd ammendment has not been incorporated to the states. Unless you can show me otherwise, I have researched this extensively, it has NOT been incorporated. This is regardless of Heller.
In Heller he points at that it has not been incorproated, and that incorporation was not discussed in Heller, therefore there is no ruling on incorporation via Heller.
So since it hadn’t been incorporated in the past, and they did not change anything, it is not incorporated now. No incorporation then it does not apply to the states, so Scalia says “The second ammanedment only applies to the Federal Governemnt”
You have not shown otherwise at all. In fact you have only presented evidence that supports my statement. Please show me any evidence that the 2nd ammendment has been incorporated to the states.
DC has self rule, I do not know if the mayor et-al are federal employees, but it’s governing framework for it’s laws is the Federal Constitution, as shown in the Heller case.
And my post in this thread was about the piece that Cecil mentioned in his article that the 2nd apllies to the states the same as the 1st.
If you agree that it is not incorporated, than Cecil’s statement is incorrect.
My post had nothing whatsoever to do with the footnote, which I have not, and will not comment on the purporse or meaning of the footnote as a whole.
My comment in this thread is one thing and one thing only. -The 2nd ammendment does not apply to state or city firearms bans- sadly the Heller case does nothing to stop the current bans outside of DC.
I commented in relation to Cecil’s comments that the 2nd does apply. Clearly it does not, which seems to be what yu just said.
I have no opinon about Scalia’s footnote, i did not put forth any opinion about Scalia’s footnote, I have no idea why anyone would argue with me about my opinionn of Scalia’s footnote, which as I mention I have none.
My only comment is that the 2nd ammendment does not apply to the states, bolstered by Scalia’s statement "the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government. "
Please have your discsion about the maning of the footnote with someon that has an opinion about, which I do not.
As others have said, the decision did not incorporate the 2nd Amendment. But you are taking the quote out of context. Scalia’s opinion was citing what the Court had done previously, in other decisions. Making reference to previous decisions is what the Court does when considering the matter at hand.
If you read the entire passage it was taken from it is clear that Scalia was doing exactly that.
Yes, exactly, the previous ruling of the court was that the 2nd is not incoporated, Scalia is stating that. That is my only point, what exactly are you arguing against here?
My Statement -----> The 2nd ammendment has not been incorporated to the states, it applies only to the Federal governemnt.
Oh and I am in o way taking the quote out of context. It’s no different if in the footnote Justice Scalia sad “My last name is Scalia, and…” And i used this as evidence that his name is Scalia, he could be talking about alines at area 51 for all I care, the point is his name is Scalia.
I am not arguing any other point in the footnote, Scalia said, “the 2nd ammendmnet applys only to the federal governemnt”
That is my only point, context is irrelvant to the above fact.
For instance. Today is June 27th 2008 and you guys have poor reading comprehension.
Any statement about reading comprehension has no relevance to the date.
