DAN AZ, you can stop laughing. S C was talking about a toilet in D.C. that is FULL of it. That,s not funny because that those in that Thity presently Rule our lives.

But the federal courts have consistantly applied it to the states concerning any display that could be considered religious being put on state owned property. If the First amendment can be applied to the states in this manner then the Second amendment applies as well.

Independent T., You are confusing rights with the Bill of Rights purpose. Rights are unalienable and existed before the federal government AND the Bill of Rights. When States are forced by courts to remove religious displays from public buildings and grounds, it is supposedly because of the nebulous ‘separation of church and state’ which, actually, doesn’t exist. It is based upon the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law,” however, that is a restriction on federal laws, respecting religion, not the right itself. People who exercise their religious rights, are not exercising a First Amendment right, the right is unalienable, it is dependent on any constitution for its existence.

Independent T., You are confusing rights with the Bill of Rights purpose. Rights are unalienable and existed before the federal government AND the Bill of Rights. When States are forced by courts to remove religious displays from public buildings and grounds, it is supposedly because of the nebulous ‘separation of church and state’ which, actually, doesn’t exist. It is based upon the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law,” however, that is a restriction on federal laws, respecting religion, not the right itself. People who exercise their religious rights, are not exercising a First Amendment right, the right is unalienable, it is not dependent on any constitution for its existence.

You miss my point. If the feds can force the limitations placed on the federal government onto the state governments in the case of the first amendment they can force the states to honor the second amendment in the same way.

Independent, When States are forced to remove religious plagues and monuments, that has nothing to do with the First Amendment. if has to do with what religious groups agreed to when they signed up for their 501(c)3 tax exemptions. They agreed to refrain from political activity. So far, one church, in the New England States, has lost its tax exemption for speaking out against government policies. Bob Jones University didn’t apply for a 501(c)3 tax exemption, but because one of its students was there on a federal grant, it’s now under attack for speaking out against federal policies.

…and then the 14th Amendment added a bunch of stuff after “No State shall …”

Everything occurring after that point _must_ be interpreted in light of that alteration.

John H. The 14th Amendment’s “No State shall” is not an alteration of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. It was enacted in 1868, just three years after the Civil War ended, and three years after the just freed slaves were made citizens by the 13th Amendment of 1865. It says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
This applied to the just freed Blacks, and means that States must apply their due process of law equally to all citizens, regardless of race. U.S. v. Cruikshank was such a case. Blacks had been deprived of their firearms, without due process of law, and they assumed that action violated the 2nd Amendment. The Court ruled that it did not, and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Neither party had asked the Court to view this action from the “due process of law” clause of the 14th Amendment, and courts don’t advise parties how best to pursue their case.

Cameron,
That is their RIGHT! If you are stating you are trying to get them to give them up, Who the hell are you to try to abridge their rights???

Of course the 2nd Amendment is different. It does not have “congress shall make no law” so its scope is _not_ limited to congress.

There is no justification for using the content of one amendment in this way to apply a limit to the meaning of another, unrelated amendment. The fact that we call the first ten amendments “the bill of rights” does _not_ alter that fact.

John H., All due respect, but that’s silly. If the Founders had repeated “Congress shall make no law” in each of the first eight amendments, we’d have thought that was childish repetition. Assigning separate numbers to the amendments has caused some misunderstanding. Advocates of federal gun control love to view the Second Amendment out of its Bill of Rights context, then apply it to the States, which has caused tons of confusion.

I believe that the 14th amendment was a result of some states not honoring the “Bill of Rights”, especially for the newly freed slaves. Clearly the 14th amendment provides that the “Bill of Rights” applies to state laws as well; this was its’ purpose.

Anyone who believe that the militia means the national guard should look up when the 2nd amendment was written verses when the national guard was formed. Besides the national guard is controlled by the federal government not the states. What we have is the fox watching over the hen house. That argument is so broken.

The other argument that “The people” means “The states” in the second amendment but not the remaining is also broken beacuse state and people are both used in the second amendment. If that were true it would have read:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the states to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”

But that is not what it says!!!!!!!!

“Anyone who believe that the militia means the national guard should look up when the 2nd amendment was written verses when the national guard was formed. Besides the national guard is controlled by the federal government not the states.”

There was a time the Guard could have been considered a part of the militia. That time ended when the Guard was nationalized by either Carter or Reagan I do not remember which. The Guard is now considered a part of the army reserves so you are correct in stating the Natioonal Guard is not the militia.

Don, the Supreme Court has never held that the 14th Amendment provides for the Bill of Rights to apply to the States. State constitutions have their own bills of rights. Fourty-four of them have clauses similar to the 2nd Amendment. No state law has ever been held violative of the 2nd Amendment. You are identifying the right with that amendment, you want the 2nd Amendment to apply to the States so they will have the right, but they had the right before the Bill of Rights existed. The right to bear arms is not a constitutional right, it is not a 2nd Amendment right, it is a gift from God, not the government.

James writes:
“The 10th Amendment reminds Congress that “powers not delegated” (such as over the subject matter rights) are “reserved to the States…or to the people.” ”

It is interesting that James left out a rather important piece of the 10 th.

“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. ”

That little piece “..nor prohibited by it to the States..”
Which clearly shows the Founders intent to limit at least State governments with what? With the parts of the Bill that do not say “Congress shall make no law….” That would of course be the other 8. 2nd am, 5th am etc…

Much case law since Cruikshank has decided that much of the First shall also apply to state and local government thru the 14 amendment.

James is correct in on thing however not the way he intended. One of the powers delegated to the FedGov was indeed with respect to rights. FedGov is tasked with protecting those rights from abrigement or infringement by state or local government. Hence FedGov is REQUIRED to defend peoples rights. Now let us look again at which amendments describe rights.

2nd. 4th, 6th. 7th, 9th all even contain the word right or rights of the people

3rd, 5th, 8th all describe things not to be done (By fedgov) directly implying the existence of rights. Some (including me) think that 5,8 also apply to all governments and one of the delegated duties of the FedGov is to protect the people from state and local government abridgment of 3, 5, 8.

9th specifically warns that there are a LOT more rights that belong to the people.

10th specifically reminds fedgov that the states and people control any POWERS not specifically delegated to FedGov nor prohibited to the states.

Note again that 10 talks of powers not rights. Only PEOPLE have rights. Government only has powers that the people delegate to those entities.

My bad. I missed one. The 1st does indeed have the word right in it. Intersestingly it is the right of people to assemble peaceably…

Funny how states and local governments keep requiring permits but then again the 1st does say CONGRESS shall make no law…..

Vicki, the five most ignored words in the Bill of Rights are “Congress shall make no law.” The whole amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
That does no mean that, henceforth, citizens within the States now have those rights. They won those rights in the Revolutionary War and were exercising them before the national government was created. The primary fear the States had, when considering the creation of a national government (to settle disputes between the states) was that their powers might be used to legislate over rights. Hence, the Bill of Rights. You are ignoring the Founders’ discussions of this at the Constitutional Convention, all the Supreme Court decisions that disagree with you, and all fifty state constitutions.

I’m not ignoring them. Like you I noticed that they are there. I ALSO notice they are not in the 2nd amendment. Therefore the 2nd is a restriction on all government, Fed, State, Local. Its wording is clear. ALL of the very discussions you mention support the understanding that the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
At all. Ever.

Vicki, your mind has locked up. In U.S. v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to the national government, not the States, and the D.C. v. Heller Court reaffirmed that decision.
Your problem, as I see it, is that you believe the Bill of Rights IS our rights, and if it doesn’t apply to the States, then no one would have any rights. Since rights existed before the Bill of Rights (and the national government) were created, that stance should seem absurd. Your defense of our rights is admirable, but your belief that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or…the right…to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” somehow applies to the States that slapped it onto Congress, is absurd.

BINGO!!! The militia in Colonial terminology was (& still is) the general population capable of defending America from aggression. Hence, as far as I’m concerned, the Second Amendment guarantees American citizens the right to keep & bear military grade weapons. Try buying a 105mm recoilless rifle or a mortar & keeping it in your front yard, ready to load & fire. The Federal Gov’t would have a cow! They’re afraid some “kook” would tell them that they’re doing something un-Constitutional & try to stop them. With the price of ammo only a rich man or a crook could afford to load one though.

Please cite the relevant Supreme Court cases where they held that view. And you lose if you cite US v. Miller, that is _not_ what the USSC held in that case.

The militia clause of the 2nd Amendment is a _reason_ for the Right to be protected against government interference, it is _not_ a limitation on the _scope_ of that right. Please read this: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

John Hardin, There was a period of time, when the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment was interpreted by Congress to mean that only military-type weapons were protected from federal infringement. It was during that period when the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1965 were enacted (under its federal power to regulate commerce). (It was later noted that restricting the shipment of sawed-off shotguns in interstate commerce was actually a violation of the 2nd Amendment because in WWI, sawed-off shotguns were general issue.)
The Heller Court ended that controversy, by calling attention to the fact that all American males were required to keep an operable firearm in their possession, for possible service in their state’s militia. In essence, the Heller Court held that the 2nd Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” now applies to all weapons, but only applied it to personal handguns, for one’s self defense, in the District of Columbia. This was extended to state law through the “liberty” clause of the 14th Amendment, in McDonald v. Chicago.

One of the more interesting arguments from the gun ban group is that the 2nd amendment only protects the keep and bear arms of the militia. Of course if you study even simple English you can see that is false but just for the moment let us pretend they are right. So then who is the milita?

United States Code Title 10 subtitle A > Part 1 > Chapter 13 > 311

That pretty much covers it. So stop with the gun bans already.

Vicki, The idea that the 2nd Amendment only protects militia-type weapons from infringement, has been in vogue since the early 30s. With a Supeme Court amenable to that, Congress passed the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun control Act of 1965. In D.C. v. Heller, Justice Stevens, in his dissent, made this argument again, that the amendment only protects militia-type weapons. However, the majority overruled, noting that all able-bodied men were required, if needed, to serve in their state’s militia, and were required to keep an operable firearm in their possession for that purpose, as well as for personal use for self-defense. The Court held that even though Mr. Heller was not a militiaman, he was entitled to keep a handgun in his home for his self defense. This ended the militia clause argument, the Court held the amendment’s “shall not be infringed” applies to all types of weapons.
In footnote 23, the Heller Court cited and upheld its previous decisions in U.S. v. Cruikshank and others. This ended the Militia clause loophole which allowed Congress to regulate non-militia-type firearms. However, that decision did not change to whom the Second Amendment’s restriction applies, namely, the federal government.

It’s a little more complicated than that.
“Scalia observed that while the Court’s earlier ruling in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) stated that the Second Amendment did not apply against the states, “Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases.”"
http://reason.com/archives/2009/06/11/the-second-amendment-and-the-s

SO Cruikshank did not engage the 14th argument on First Amendment cases either. Are you saying that any state government can silence you at any time. Are you saying that the 5th amendment protections only protect you from federal government cases?

I know a lot of DAs will be happy to hear that they can now force people to testify against themselves.

Vicki, Cruikshank did not explore the 14th Amendment’s “liberty” approach because neither party requested it. Back then, the “liberty” of the 14th Amendment only applied to the just freed slaves, and did not include rights at all. It only restricted the States from depriving blacks of “Life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The High Court simply said the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the States, and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
And, No, I am not saying a “state government can silence you at any time.” I am saying the Bill of Rights only restricts the federal government. State Constitutions restrict the states.
For example, the Illinois Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 22 reads: “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Chicago ordinance violated that, not the 2nd Amendment. Rights are unalienable. Like the Cruikshank Court said, they are not dependent on any constititon for their existence. There seems to be a near total ignorance, here, of the separation of powers. I have yet to see any comments here that cite or even mention one’s state constitution.

If rights are as you say “unalienable” why may a state ( Illinois for instance) alienate where the Feds can’t? The reason most of us do not bother with the state constitutions is that, right or wrong most of us have been taught that the Bill of Rights applies to all government entities. Silly us. However since you brought up states rights let us look at the oft ignored 10th amendment.

“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. ”

So let me see. Some powers were delegated to the fedgov (coining money as example) Some powers were prohibited by the Constitution to the States. (That would be the Bill of Rights in particular) are reserved to the States and to the people.

Clear as day. The States do have limitations to their power beyond what powers were given to the FedGov.

You can not really believe that people who just finished dealing with government would somehow miss that state and city government can be just as bad as federal government

(“Would you tell me please, Mr. Howard… why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away?
— Mel Gibsons Char in “The Patriot”)

The Idea that Illinois protects firearms ownership except when the State needs to exercise “police power” would be total rubbish to the Founders. “Police power” is just the sort of actions that all tyrants use to “justify” their control.

Thus the very purpose of every man be armed is violated by the Illinois escape clause for government.

Vicki, The Second Amendment simply says: the right…shall not be infringed. And the Illinois Constitution says: the right…shall not be infringed. A federal law which infringes on the right violates the Second Amendment, and, an Illinois law which infringes on the right violates Art. I, Sec. 22, of that state’s constitution.
When the Chicago ordinance infringed on the right, the Illinois Constitution didn’t jump up and slap them in the face. And when the U.S. Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1965 (GCA), the Second Amendment didn’t stop them either.
If the GCA infringed on your right, you would file a suit in a federal District Court, alleging that such federal law violated the Second Amendment. If you live in Illinois and the Chicago ordinance violated your unalienable right, you would file suit in a state court alleging that the ordinance violated the Illinois Constitution’s Art. I, Sec 22.
Laws don’t enforce themselves, to protect rights offended parties must file lawsuits.

Vicke, Every state has “police power,” that does not mean they have the power to violate their state’s constitution or one’s unalienable rights. Police power just means they have power to arrest citizens who commit crimes. In Illinois, exercising one’s unalienable right to bear arms in the Chicago area, was declared a crime. That ordinance violated the state’s constitution. The remedy should have been to file suit in a state court, so alleging. Filing the suit in a federal District Court opened the door to federal regulation of the right within the states – the very ‘thing’ the Second Amendment was designed to prevent.

Christians are instructed by their Scripture to obey the laws of the ruling government(s). This is tempered, however, by a mandate to follow God’s instructions over that of (human) government. Christ told His disciples to be armed (Luke 22:35-38), not for defense against religious persecution, but for defense against lawless men. There is soon coming a time when each of us are going to have to decide which applies, as it is apparent that our present government is being run in a lawless fashion by ungodly and lawless men. -john

THANKS,DON TREMAINE,I WELL SEE IF I CAN FIND IT,BUT GENERALLY I READ BOOKS AND HANG OUT WITH THE FAMILY MEMBERS (grand kids).ITS REALLY GREAT TO POST ON THIS SITE,I READ SOME REALLY WELL THOUGHT OUT TRAINS OF THOUGHT,THANK GOD THAT THIS NATION HAS SO MANY PEOPLE THAT STILL BELIEVE IN THE (UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS), I STILL REMEMBER WHAT WAS TOLD TO ME BY MY GRANDFATHER,AND THAT WAS “THE ONLY DIFFERANCE BETWEEN LIBERTY AND TRANNY,WAS A WHISPER AWAY.HE WAS A SMART OLD GUY AND SERVED IN THE FIRST WORLD WAR.AND HE WAS VERY FEIRCE ABOUT HIS PERSONAL LIBERTY AND TALKED ABOUT THE GREAT DEPRESSION AND HOW HE HAD WITTNESSED THE THEFT OF OUR FREEDOMS BY THOSE WHO WOULD HAVE TURNED THIS NATION INTO ANOTHER COMMUNIST RUSSIA IN THE 1930s.THE POINT IS THAT BEING THE OLD GUY I AM,AND BEING RAISED BY MY GRANDPARENTS,I HAVE THE TRAIN OF THOUGHT,THAT I AM ALWAYS VIGILANT,AND NEVER TRUST ANY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE WITH THE GOD GIVEN RIGHTS THAT (UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS)THAT WERE ENTRUSTED TO THE GOVERNMENT TO DEFEND,AND THAT IS ALL OF THEM,NOT JUST THE ONES THAT THESE NEO-COM COMMUNIST LIBERALS CHOOSE TO SELECT AND INTERPET INTO WHATEVER THEY CHOOSE TO DO.AND IF THOSE LAWS ARE VOIDED OR ABRIDGED,THEN THAT CONTRACT HAS BEEN BROKEN,GUESS WHAT,IN SIMPLE WORDS THEY DONT GET WHAT THEY DONT GIVE,AND THAT IS MY SUPPORT VIA MY VOTE.I SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH,THROW THEM ALL OUT PERIOD!ITS TIME FOR THEM TO GET JOBS PICKING UP PENNIES ON THIS NATIONS FREEWAYS.SINCE THEY(liberals)ARE TRYING TO NICKEL AND DIME ALL OUR FREEDOMS AWAY.

Hi Joe,
Its about time isn’t it? How long has he been there? Twenty plus years?

It was not twenty “plus” years, it was twenty “negative” years.

Ron,
AMEN Brother!!