McDonald V. Chicago Oral arguments 3/2/10

[vvvvvvv]

No, we want federal protection from states trampling on God given rights. That's pretty much what incorporation of the 2A is.

So you want the Ninth and Tenth ignored in order to advance the Second through the Fourteenth, correct?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

So you want the Ninth and Tenth ignored in order to advance the Second through the Fourteenth, correct?

You are missing something here. It's called the balance of power. While the Ninth and Tenth amendments protect us from a runaway power-hungry feral(federal) government, the Fourteenth gives power to the feral(federal) government to reign in state encroachment and infringement on our rights. When both segments of government do their job, we remain in freedom.

Woody

 

[redmax51]

^^ What he said. Steve

 

[poopgiggle]

...so "conservatives" want federal law to trump state law?

That's basically what incorporation is.

No you TOTALLY don't get it. Small government is good unless growing the government results in something we like!

Seriously though, I think the way this will play out is that a certain minimum level of ownership will be protected but trickier things like concealed carry or NFA weapons will be left up to the states. I think that's a good balance. As much as I would personally love concealed carry to be legal everywhere, I still think the states have a right to choose.

 

[338Shooter]

So you want the Ninth and Tenth ignored in order to advance the Second through the Fourteenth, correct?

I'd say that incorporation of the 2A is upholding the 9th and 10th. Seems to me that "...shall not be infringed" would also apply to the states via the 10th. "...nor prohibited by it to the States..." Not being able to infringe something seems prohibitive to me.

Do you think "the people" in the 9th refers to the states or is a "collective" term?

 

[henschman]

the 10A says that all powers not specifically granted to the feds go to the states or to the people.

However, the 14A says that no state shall deny life, liberty, or property to any person without due process of law.

The question is whether the court will find that the right to bear arms (the same right protected by the 2A of course) is part of the "liberty" interest protected by the 14A and is therefore protected from state action.