General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (cthulu2016) on Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:31 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
Animal Chin
(175 posts)Was thinking that maybe this issue could be addressed on an even more local level, ala New York City. I.e., the residents of a city or town vote to ban guns in their jurisdiction.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)If a State constitution, or State law, has gun rights in it then a locality couldn't go against that, but if State law allows it, then my interpretation would be that a town could ban guns, free from any federal order that the people of the town have a right to own guns.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)the Militias then??
You know - the Militias the federal government would use to secure our freedoms...the ones Congress had to make provisions "...to call forth to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"?
The Militias the President would be C in C of when in service of the United States?
The Militias the Congress mandated by law a year later that most males of certain ages MUST arm themselves for and MUST enroll & serve in?
The Militias the 2nd amendment itself says are NECESSARY?
You might want to re-think this....please.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)While it is true that the emphasis on individual self-defense was later, the right itself was ALWAYS an individual right. The very first time the Supreme Court mentioned the Second Amendment it called it a right "of person." The idea that this is a personal right is not some modern invention, it was well understood from the beginning:
Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.
These powers, and others, in relation to rights of person, which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms, denied to the General Government;...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393
The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment enshrined in the Constitution their clear, uncompromising understanding that the right was individual:
The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.Senator Jacob Howard introducing the Fourteenth Amendment to the Senate, quoted by Yale Professor Amar. Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights, Creation and Reconstruction (Harrisonburg, VA: R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, 1998), 185-6 (emphases supplied).
The Fourteenth Amendment is part of the Constitution, a more important part, I would argue, than the Second. It cannot be ignored. And the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, read in historical context, clearly shows that the Second Amendment is a personal, individual right that is enforceable against the states.