Supreme Court Decision Extends Right to Keep and Bear Arms to all 50 States

[Dreamer]

Certainly, US forces have used short barreled shotguns, 18"-20" pumps and self loaders..

The US Army and USMC are currently using Mossberg 590 variants and Remington 870 variants with pistol grips and 16" breaching barrels...

From Wiki:

New Ammunition Will Decrease Fragments In Close Urban Environment Photo by Staff Sgt. Martin K. Newton January 23, 2008
U.S. Army Sgt. Christopher Harmon, from Bravo Troop, 5th Squadron, 3rd Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, executes a shotgun breach of a door lock during a house by house clearance operation in Aksabah, Iraq, Aug. 17, 2007. The Army recently approved a new anti-material cartridge, the M1030. The M1030 is designed as a breaching munition, used for defeating wooden doors, deadbolts, knobs, hinges and padlock hasps. The design of the munition minimizes ricochet hazards currently associated with buckshot breaching and provides a much safer alternative to the Soldier.

 

[JohnH]

The US Army and USMC are currently using Mossberg 590 variants and Remington 870 variants with pistol grips and 16" breaching barrels...

From Wiki:

No doubt, but at the time, the premier SBS's the US military used were Winchester Model 98's and Model 12's with either 18 or 20" barrels. Please understand I'm not belaboring the point. It's just that it ain't a perfect world. Let us hope that the antis don't get serious about holding the nation to a strict reading of Miller, and attempt to pass law requiring that anything that has not been used by the military i.e. isn't suitable for militia purposes, should be banned. How much of what we consider common today would disappear? I believe that Heller uses the phrase "in common use" several times. If things came to that, could we push a full auto reading? I think I could trade a detective special for an M3 or M4

It is interesting the relationship between the destructive devices of Blackstones time and those of NFA, thanks for pulling that up. The blunderbuss certainly fits the description of an SBS with a shorter than "carbine" tube don't it. What is sickening is knowing that the NFA was written as a tax code because that congress was trying to dodge the 2nd amendment. It aint like they didn't know it was a questionable act

 

[ncpatriot]

Puzzles Me

What puzzles me whenever this discussion comes up is that none of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights come up for such debate, at least not to my knowledge. But 2A has to be debated whether it applies to the states. Well, the individual states make up the nation. Without the states, there is no nation, or would Washington, DC make up the nation? In that case, why has DC been so down on guns for so long? If the 2A didn't cover the states, why didn't the states go ahead and disarm the citizens? If 2A only applied to militias, again why didn't the states or feds go ahead and disarm all the individual citizens?

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

What puzzles me whenever this discussion comes up is that none of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights come up for such debate, at least not to my knowledge.
But 2A has to be debated whether it applies to the states. Well, the individual states make up the nation. Without the states, there is no nation, or would Washington, DC make up the nation. In that case, why has DC been so down on guns for so long?

Several other amendments aren't incorporated. For example, the amendment dealing with grand juries. It is up to each state if they have a grand jury process. WI, for example, doesn't. To be charged with a Federal crime, you need to be charged by a grand jury.

There are other examples, I just can't remember them all.

 

[rodbender]

Well, I'm sort of the "yes and no" school with regards to that...

The Constitution was intended to delineate the limited powers of the Federal government, that is true. However, those rights are described as "unalienable". This means they are pre-existent to ANY government, and are inherant to the human condition, and their exercise and security is beyond the scope of ANY government.

Any government.

I think that perhaps they didn't delineate that these rights couldn't be abridged by the states or local goveernments, because they felt that those more local forms of government would be more directly answerable to the People, and therefore didn't have to be "reminded" that these rights were unalienable. They probably felt that it was, as they wrote, "self evident" that these rights were fundamental. Perhaps they had too much faith in the People to keep their local and state governments in line. Since all the states signed on to the constitution in Ratification, they probably assumed that the States actually agreed with the terms of the deal...

Unfortunately, political duplicity has been around for a LONG time, an it appears that this assumption (if it were made) was ill-conceived...

Legally, yes, I suppose an argument can be made that States and municipalities CAN pass laws that are contrary to the US Constitution. A weak argument, but the argument can be and has been made.

What is inarguable, however, is that states and municipalities do not have the MORAL authority to abridge these rights...

Unfortunately, morals and ethics have little place (or utility) in a court of law...

TRhe framers specifically stated that the Constituion was meant to apply to the federal government only. As a matter of fact, there were state sponsored religions in some of the states before and after ratification.

 

[simmonsjoe]

I disagree. Read the 10th Amendment.

10A: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution does not limit federal authority, it only delegates certain duties. This means the Federal Gov't can not do anything except what the constitution expressly tells it to.

The Constitution does not delegate authority to the States, It limits their power. This means the States can do anything except what the constitution tells it not to.

Why everyone likes to ignore the 10A, I don't know, as it directly contradicts most common and invalid conceptions of the BoR's purpose. It is true that the whole incorporation issue is B.S., but that is because the BoR, by its very nature, restricts State power. This whole bogus argument about how the BoR only effects the Federal Gov't is crazy.

How you can try and say the BoR limits Federal against States is ludicrous. States don't have Rights. States have POWER. The ONLY AMENDMENT TO MENTION STATES, TALKS ABOUT POWER, NOT RIGHTS. The only amendment to NOT mention rights, is the only one mentioning States. This is a very important distinction.
--------------------

Originally Posted by KansasMustang
You're so full of S*#t your eyes are brown. The Constitution is ONLY about limiting power. Not only of the Federal government but of the states. All the power lies in the hands of the people, and only granted to government by our will. IT is you sir that needs to do more study of not only the Constitution but of ALL the writings of the Founders. The Federalist Papers are a good place for you to start."

So exactly where are you disagreeing with me?

The poster stated the BoR did not deal with individual rights, but protected state rights against the federal govt. Rights are unalienable, and cannot be transferred from the people to state or federal power. The 10A makes it clear, the Federal gov't has NO POWER NOT EXPRESSLY DELEGATED BY THE CONSTITUTION. (i.e. postal service, common defense, etc) The rest of the power belongs to the States, or the people. State govt's may have (depending on the State's govt) extensive powers so long as it does not violate individual Rights/Liberties.

The States CAN NOT delegate a power it is prohibited by the Constitution/BoR from having. So it is not possible for a delegated duty of the Federal Govt to include violating an unalienable right. Any time the Fed Govt violates an unalienable right it is proof it is overstepping its authority.

Like I said pay attention to the 10A, it is very important. The mislead by claiming the Constitution/BoR limits the power of the Fed govt, is that it implies anything not limited is acceptable. This is false. The Fed Govt has only the powers that were delegated to it. It has absolutely positively no authority to act outside of its delegated positions, even in the most inane matter.

All the power does not lie with the people. All the power belongs to the people. Unlike with unalienable rights, power is transferable. We collectively delegate power to the State's we are residents of by enacting legislation though a legal process with representatives we vote into office.

P.S. -I cut'n'pasted this from a past conversation, so when I'm saying 'how you could...' or anything like that it isn't to anyone in this discussion.

 

[rodbender]

The Constitution APPLIED to the federal government. Don't believe me? Read the notes that were taken by some of the framers (there was no official record kept), read the ratification debates of the several states. That's where you will find the intent of the framers. Find out for yourself what the framers had in mind when they were debating the wording of the Constitution. Then tell me that the Constitution applies to the states.

Even 10A does not say it applies to the states. It says if the Constitution does not say the feds can do it, then they can't (like healthcare). BTW, that's a limit, and there are several. It also says that if states are prohibited from doing something by the Constitution, then they can't do it (like coin money). That, too, is a limit. Furthermore, it says that everything else is left up to the states and the people, respectively. That means the states could do anything not prohibited by Art. I, Sec. 10.

Even 14A was not meant to incorporate the BOR to the states. The original intent was to tell the states that they could not have one set of laws for one group of people and another for everyone else. Southern states were not allowing freedmen (former slaves) to own arms, access to the courts to settle greivances, and property rights among other things. Not once in the debates in congress over 14A was it mentioned that 14A was to make the BOR or the Constitution apply to the states. Some members of congress would later (after ratification) say it does, but it was not mentioned in the congressional debates.

The way I see it, the ratification process of 14A and 15A was dubious at best, and outright illegal (maybe immoral is a better term, but I like illegal) at worst.

P.S. How do you change colors and get bold type with this new system.

 

[wrightme]

P.S. How do you change colors and get bold type with this new system.

"Settings | General Settings"

Bottom of the page, select "Standard Editor."

 

[rodbender]

"Settings | General Settings"

Bottom of the page, select "Standard Editor."

thanks.

 

[since9]

The Constitution APPLIED to the federal government. Don't believe me? Read the notes that were taken by some of the framers (there was no official record kept), read the ratification debates of the several states. That's where you will find the intent of the framers. Find out for yourself what the framers had in mind when they were debating the wording of the Constitution. Then tell me that the Constitution applies to the states.

We do not need the notes of the framers, as to whom/what the Constitution applied is precisely detailed in the Constitution itself:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 1 - The Legislature: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States..."

Article V - Amendment: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Article VI: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Even 10A does not say it applies to the states.

Yes it does: Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I'd paraphrase it, but the best paraphrase is a direct quote.

Even 14A was not meant to incorporate the BOR to the states.

Your logic fails: The Constitution itself applies to the United States, but only those powers specifically enumerated therein, with all other powers and rights being retained by the individual states or the people. Thus, the Constitution most certainly applied to the States as well as to the United States. All amendments to the Constitution apply in precisely the same manner as the Constitution itself.

The 14th and 15th Amendments (along with several others) were necessary to clarify the intent of the Constitution, namely, that it applied equally to all men (as in "mankind," which includes women).

 

[rodbender]

One must go back to the framers intent to precisely interpret the Constitution. If you want to accept what a bunch of activist judges have said it means, then all I can say is you are wrong, and so are they.

If you don't want to follow the Constitution for what it actually means, then you should not complain (you have the right, I'm simply saying you shouldn't) when SCOTUS says it means something you don't like, claiming they are wrong.

I would very much like to think it applies to the states (and I did at one time), and I am saddened by the fact that it does not. But I can't, because I know better now.