Which way should the US Supreme Court rule on the 2nd Amendment next month?

Matt Collins

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
47,707
Which way do YOU think that the US Supreme Court should rule on the application of the 2nd Amendment to the State governments?


This is a tricky one because this is where libertarianism and Constitutionalism do not intersect. :)


Selected clips:


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704269004575073771717464954.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular



The court will consider March 2 whether the Constitution blocks states from restricting handguns. The case could further rework arms regulations in the aftermath of the court's 2008 decision to strike down a law for violating the Second Amendment for the first time.

hat decision invalidated the District of Columbia's handgun ban for infringing what the court called an "inherent right to self-defense." The capital's peculiar status as a federal enclave, however, left unclear the implications for state law. The Supreme Court will hear arguments over that question in challenges to handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., weighing whether the principle it set for Washington, D.C. also applies to states and local communities.

In a 1997 book, "A Matter of Interpretation," Justice Scalia wrote that he viewed "the Second Amendment as a guarantee that the federal government would not interfere with the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Yet, this next passage gives court watchers some pause. "Of course," Justice Scalia continued, "properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states."


Now a claim to the contrary—that the Second Amendment does limit arms control by the states—is pending.



NA-BE400A_GUNS_NS_20100218212558.gif
 
I would prefer all rights in the amendments were incorporated to apply to state and even local governments, though I see the position as tyrannical and oppressive, but only against tyrannical voters & officials. ... I can swallow the dilemma.
 
As the story says the 14th amendment has been used to apply Federal Laws to the States. Keeping with the tradition if the Justices believe the Federal Government can't deprive someone of their 2nd amendment right then it may well be applied to the State governments as well.... another power grab by the Federal Government.

As much as I don't like very tight gun regulations and would like to see them repealed I don't want the the Supreme Court (Federal Government) giving themselves the power to decide.
 
Last edited:
Unless the states are allowed to ignore other amendments in the constitution, I don't see why the 2nd is an exception.
 
Excellent question Matt, a sticky issue indeed. The expeditious libertarian in me would be quite happy to see the 2nd Amendment incorporated against the states through the 14th Amendment. If the majority opinion sounded like it had come from the pen of Randy Barnett, I would find it difficult to complain. However, the more cautious student of political economy inclines me to notice that there will doubtless be 'reasonable regulation' exceptions large enough to drive a truck through, and the decentralist in me shudders at the Federal Octopus wrapping it's tentacles further around the once-sovereign states.
 
Last edited:
I would prefer all rights in the amendments were incorporated to apply to state and even local governments, though I see the position as tyrannical and oppressive, but only against tyrannical voters & officials. ... I can swallow the dilemma.

I agree with you on that, but I don't think it is going to happen. There are too many anti-gun folks in local and state governments who know how to work with the anti-gun folks in D.C. to see to it that tyrannical bans remain in place.

The best thing we have left, in my opinion, is to allow the local governments to ban guns and let Darwin sort it out. When the crime shoots up in those cities and states and all the productive liberty lovers move and take their tax dollars somewhere else, well, that'll serve those tyrants right for making their communities safe for criminals.
 
I always thought that the 2nd amendment was a tad bit different than a few others in the fact that it's one of the few that does over-ride the State governments.

This is good and bad; if the Federal government is lax on gun-control, it'll likely end up being better than what we currently have, but if it decides to go gun-control crazy, well, we're toast.

Something tells me the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the States this time.
 
If we are going to claim the US Constitution is sovereign over the states then how can we claim to defend states rights?

At that point I see no purpose in defending states at all and we might as well abolish the states and create a National Democracy.

Nullification and secession would be meaningless as well.
 
If we are going to claim the US Constitution is sovereign over the states then how can we claim to defend states rights?

At that point I see no purpose in defending states at all and we might as well abolish the states and create a National Democracy.

Nullification and secession would be meaningless as well.

This.

If we, with one hand, grant the federal gov't its supra-constitutional misinterpretation of "due process" by way of the 14th Amendment to secure a Right against cumbersome state laws, we then concede with the other hand that the Bill of Rights, far from being a list of "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" is indeed, only another grant of power to the benefit of Leviathan.

:eek:
 
Last edited:
Unless the states are allowed to ignore other amendments in the constitution, I don't see why the 2nd is an exception.

:)

Or maybe Georgia does have the authority to bring back slavery.
 
I guess I see it from a different angle. and ask a couple questions,
Which States Ratified the Constitution or Joined the union with the 2nd amendment in place?
Did any sign on with stipulations or objections to the 2nd Amendment?

The way I see it," Rights", as the Declaration of Independence recognizes, transcend both the State and Federal governments.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
They were to be untouchable.
 
It's odd. Nowhere in the second amendment is the congress or any other branch of the federal government mentioned, yet somehow people think the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government.

A bigger question is why if the second amendment only applies to weapons that the military does not use (basis of the Miller decision) then why can the government ban machine guns?
 
From a fairly well known attorney / Constitutional expert whom I will not cite because they did not give me permission to:

The 2A stands for the idea that gun regulation is up to state (including local) governments. The lawsuit asks the federal courts to assume a supervisory role. That isn't application of the 2A against state governments, it's an inversion of the 2A.

Here is another expert attorney in this field that will also remain anonymous:
From a state's rights perspective and placing the constitution into context that the states are sovereign and created it voluntarily, the entirety of the incorporation doctrine which has been used to apply the Bill of Rights to the states is wrong. We cannot and should not be tempted to destroy state sovereignty when a perceived "good" set of facts are pending as such temptation sets precedent for future damage of immeasurable scope.

.
 
It's odd. Nowhere in the second amendment is the congress or any other branch of the federal government mentioned, yet somehow people think the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government.

A bigger question is why if the second amendment only applies to weapons that the military does not use (basis of the Miller decision) then why can the government ban machine guns?

Correct answer.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index...he-second-amendment-the-states-and-the-people

It all went wrong with Barron v. Baltimore when the SCOTUS took the language of the 1A in this 5A case and decided the BoR only applied to the federal government.

It was the wrong decision then, and is contrary to the statements of the founders and the debate in the federalist papers. That the Constitution applied to the States at all levels of government was clearly understood.
 
But it's my understanding that it wasn't until the Incorporation Doctrine came into effect?


.

In 1791 William Rawle was appointed as a United States Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington, a post he held for more than eight years. He had also been George Washington's candidate for the nation's first attorney general, but Rawle declined the appointment. Rawle's "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829), was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. He describes the scope of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. (Rawle's comments quoted from Halbrook, Stephen P., That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, University of New Mexico Press, 1984.)
"the powers not delegated to congress by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people[quoting the 10th Amendment]. What we are about to consider are certainly not delegated to congress, nor are they noticed in the prohibitions to states; they are therefore reserved either to the states or to the people. Their high nature, their necessity to the general security and happiness will be distinctly perceived."

"In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, in the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulation as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest."



"The corollary, from the first position, is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."



"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."



"In most of the countries of Europe, this right does not seem to be denied, although it is allowed more or less sparingly, according to circumstances. In England, a country which boasts so much of its freedom, the right was secured to protestant subjects only, on the revolution of 1688; and is cautiously described to be that of bearing arms for their defence,'suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.' An arbitrary code for the preservation of game in that country has long disgraced them. A very small proportion of the people being permitted to kill it, though for their own subsistence; a gun or other instrument, used for that purpose by an unqualified person, may be seized and forfeited. Blackstone, in whom we regret that we cannot always trace expanded principles of rational liberty, observes however, on this subject, that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the people, is oftener meant than avowed, by the makers of forest and game laws."
 
Back
Top