blank'/> Liberally Lean From The Land Of Dairy Queen: Hold On To Your Guns

9.30.2009

Hold On To Your Guns

The Supreme Court, with that new "liberal wienie" Justice Sotomayer, today has agreed to hear a case concerning an issue I suspect most of you didn't even think existed: Does the Second Amendment's "Right to Bear Arms" apply to the states and local municipalities. Stay with me here. The Second Amendment says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" But the problem is that when the Bill of Rights was first enacted, all the amendments applied to the federal government and not the States. No one disputes that, and the First Amendment, for example, even starts out with "Congress shall make no law . . . . " Let that sink in. In the beginning, the Constitution did not prevent a city, state, or county from preventing a citizen from speaking his mind, preventing a defendant from having a jury trial, or banning any newspaper. There might have been other laws enacted by the states that would provide that protection, but the Constitution didn't help out. But after states and local governments began trampling on its citizens, the Supreme Court began considering whether the Bill of Rights could, in some form or fashion, be used to prevent states, cities, counties, and any public subdivision from committing civil rights violations. Here is where your head will spin: So began a series of cases using the "Incorporation Doctrine" which decided, on a right by right basis, whether that right "applied to the States through the enactment of the 14th Amendment." If you want to research that, go ahead. Basically, it says that the 14th Amendment sucks out some, if not all, of the first ten amendments and makes them applicable to the states. Call it mental gymnastics or judicial activism or just plain craziness, but you can't take a Con Law class without studying it. But, like I said, the Court has previously made those decisions on a right by right basis (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, right to counsel, etc.) But as of 2009, I think there are currently only two rights in the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not decided whether they "apply to the States." The first one is the right to a Grand Jury indictment (which doesn't matter to Texas because Texas law requires that anyway) and the other is the Right to Bear Arms in the Second Amendment. Yep, this Supreme Court is going to decide whether the Second Amendment prevents, for example, the State of Texas, the City of Decatur, or Wise County from enacting laws that would ban gun possession. (If the Second Amendment doesn't apply, that doesn't mean all guns are automatically banned. It just means that states and local governments are free to enact any law they want concerning the right to own or possess a gun.) Think it's impossible for the Supreme Court to rule that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to all aspects of government? Justice Sotomayor and a the Second Circuit Federal Appeals Court have already done just that. Annie, get your gun.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hasn't this issue already been decided by the repeal of DC's gun ban? Was that finally settled or is it still in appeal?
Or does that not apply in this case because DC is not a state, although it is considered a municipality, right?

Anonymous said...

Your President appointed her!

Anonymous said...

Didn't Moses say something about
"My cold dead hand"?

Anonymous said...

I love it that you are STILL watching Fox news and their people. Yes, a few go off alittle too much, but mainstream America loves them! Look at their ratings!

bBoxerfan said...

No, that was that B-movie actor Heston. He played Moses and he also made that idiotic, thoughtless statement after the Columbine tragedy in 1999. He was a class act.

Having grown up in Texas, guns are just a way of life. However, citizens of this country do not need to own (and they do not need to be sold) every form of automatic weapon available. Some forms of gun control are necessary and justified.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't Federal Law override State Law when there's a conflict between the two? If that's the case, if federal law says I can have a gun, then I can have a gun.
Although, Texas being Texas, I don't think I will have to worry either way.

Anonymous said...

Careful there, 1235. Remember, it's a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs. I don't need three shotguns, but it's my right to own them. Where the line on weapons is drawn, I don't know, but don't think of rights in terms of needs.

Anonymous said...

12:35
Try to wear a hat with a broad brim on it. That way you might occasionally deflect one of those jokes that go over your head. Unlike a commenter in a previous thread, if somebody else feels the need to explain it, then THEY didn't get it.
And that idiotic, thoughtless statement? That sums up the entire 2nd Amendment argument

B-movie actor?! Get real. I watched Ben-Hur the other day for the umpteenth time, and it was still great. Yeah, he was a class act!

"That interests you, XLI?"

Anonymous said...

"Come and take it."

bBoxerfan, you may have grown up in Texas, but your post suggests a lack of knowledge and understanding of current guns laws, as well as a predilection for hyperbole.

While various semi-automatic firearms are available, only those who pass a stringent background test and pay a $200 per firearm tariff may possess automatic firearms. Possibly you consider this mere semantics, but it is well-known that many liars consider their craft simply 'shading the truth'.

Citizens owning firearms is not the problem in this country. The members of the NRA, TSRA, GOA and similar such groups are, in the main, the same people who have and do put their lives in harm's way for the benefit of the rest of us - veterans, active servicemembers, police and emergency responders, and just plain average citizens.

"Some forms of gun control are necessary and justified."

Truly, if you believe there are no firearms laws extant in this Republic, perhaps you might wish to direct your attentions to the Federal Register for a bit of research.

It's well-intentioned, yet misguided thinking such as yours that results in populations of previously sovereign citizens living as slaves.

Have a nice day.

Will said...

Anon. @ 11:56:

That case was internal to the language of the Second Amendment. It settled that the Second Amendment was indeed saying that individuals were the ones with rights under it, and not simply each state's national guard units. This new case will decide whether the 2nd Am. (however you interpret it) applies at all to states and their subdivisions (e.g. counties and cities).

Personally, I think it's a no-brainer that they do, otherwise the right to bear arms becomes some sort of inferior civil liberty. Of course, I got a C and a D in my two Con Law courses, so take it with a grain of salt.

Anonymous said...

Cheaper than dirt!

Anonymous said...

There are 5 provisions of the Bill of Rights that never have been incorporated and do not apply to state/local governments. 2nd (guns), 3rd (quartering soldiers), 5th (grand jury indictment), 7th (right to jury in a civil case), and 8th (prohobition of excessive fines).
There you have it ;)

M-M said...

If it were found that the more local government entities could make laws contrary to the 2nd amendment, and they did enact such laws, there would be much bloodshed trying to enforce it.

bBoxerfan said...

1:17:

First, you're an ass. Not just an ass, but a condescending ass that hides behind "Anonymous."

Second, I understand that there are forms of gun control currently on the books, but whenever anyone mentions anything that might restrict gun ownership, gun advocates go batshit crazy. No one will take your guns away; politicians like to win elections and they certainly would not if they tampered too much with the 2nd Amendment. I support the right to bear arms, I just don't think you need a wide assortment of them. I never questioned the character (and you seemed to imply that I did, another example of you being an ass) of those who own guns. And not everyone who owns a gun is a noble person who served this country - there are plenty of criminals that own firearms, too.

1:14: I got the reference, but I still think Heston displayed a condescending attitude and made idiotic, thoughtless statements directly after a tragedy that did involve the very things we'd have to pry from his hands. Maybe we could dig him up and see if we would, in fact, have to pry a gun from his cold, dead hands. No great loss there.

Anonymous said...

Accusing someone of hiding behind "Anonymous" is ludicrous. We have no more idea who you are than you do the rest of the people on here

And 1:17 made good points with his argument. Mostly what I got from yours was "Ass, ass, ass...corpse defiler"

Anonymous said...

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-Thomas Jefferson

Anonymous said...

Hey, thar, all you wild west types. You might recall that folks like Wyatt Earp enacted "ordinances" in the various cities that they marshalled, prohibiting the carrying of a gun in the city limits, except by peace officers.

That was "gun control".

It was done for a reason.

It made sense.

And it was necessary to the "cleaning up" of the "wild west".

And you can say that it didn't prohibit gun "ownership" (which it didn't), but it DID restrict the right to "bear arms".

2nd point: The "founding fathers" can't possibly have imagined the kind of modern weapons that we see on display today at any "gun show"; that can kill hundreds (if not thousands) in a matter of minutes in the hands of a madman. Go back and slip a note to them about the world in 2009 and see if their language doesn't tighten up just a mite.

Anonymous said...

How can I be a liberal but yet defend my right to bear arms? Good Lord at least I am not gender confused.

Anonymous said...

YeeeeeHHaaaaaaaaa!!!!! Those Stinking liberals won't have to pry my guns from my cold dead fingers, I'll mow'em down afore they get close with my full auto weapons because I passed the background test, paid my 200 bucks, and have cases and cases of ammo from Cheaper Than Dirt, and some I got from maybe questionabley sources. Just let them think they have me penned up in my barn, they have another thing coming, my hot automatic fire lead! YYeeeeeHHaaaaawwww!!!!! Let the fun begin! Can hardly wait! Think I'll just clean my weapons. Only break one down at a time tho to keep the others ready to fire with the safety off. A unloaded gun without a round in the chamber and the safety on is complete useless, just like those stinking liberals.

Anonymous said...

"Kill hundreds (if not thousands) in a matter of minutes? You're an idiot, STFU and quit wasting my broadband/internet storage.

Sodomyor makes no difference as she replaced a liberal activist on the court - she's a wash. This decision will rest on Kennedy's vote. Since he voted against the DC ban, I'd guess you liberal mangina's are fairly worried.

Anonymous said...

Clearly, government can and does draw the line at the types of arms people can have. Howitzers, tanks and F-16s are all "arms", but you can't have one. You can't have guns in lots of specific types of places. The right to bear arms is so loaded with restrictions already, what's the big fuss if they confiscate all the handguns?

Anonymous said...

Look what happened to England on the gun ban. Now only the criminals are armed. What next, ban Louisville Slugger bats? Toyota products kill more people than Smith and Wesson products.