imported post
Fatherof9 wrote:
The constitution only limits the federal government. It originally applied no limits to the states. However, the 14th amendment is thought by some to have changed that. That is what the ACLU uses to keep a city from putting up 10 Commandments monuments. If the 14th amendment makes the 2nd amendment apply to the states then any federal, state, county, or city laws against the bearing of arms in unconstitutional. If the 14th didn't make all the limits apply to the states, counties and cites then Texas could make Southern Baptist the state religion and it would be legal under the federal constitution. Most of those groups want to ban guns saying the 2nd doesn't apply and they want to ban religion saying the 14th makes the 1st apply to the states. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
The DC ban is different because DC is under federal control. They are not a state with the authority to control firearms. The 2nd absolutely applies there. However, judges seem to have a hard time understanding clear english in the amendments and rule whatever they think their friends will approve of, or whatever they think is right. If the 2nd amendment was followed by the courts there would be NO federal weapon laws. You could own an F16 and a tomahawk missile if you could afford them.
This is not entirely true. While the district is not a state and is in fact governed directly by congress, the city ofWashington DC is a home rule city and as such possesses all the rights and privileges of any other home rule city in its ability to make laws pertinent to its jurisdictional control. What that means is that unless congress expressly allows for an action, the city can legally restrict it. The constitution of the US applies to all areas of the US, whether a state or federal territory.
In the case of gun possession, there is no federal law that allows one to carry a weapon and the feds leave that to each state to regulate. The 2A merely allows for ownership and possession, but does not restrict a states right to regulate where, when and how. As long as there is not an outright ban or restrictions so severe that they serve the same purpose, than regulation is legal.
In the case of DC, congress has discussed passing a law to prohibit DC from banning the possession within reason, however, they have always stopped short out of concern that by regulating DC it would open the door for regulating the states as well.
The case before SCOTUS merely addresses the extreme length that the DC law goes and even if they uphold the law it will not prevent the city of DC from writing a less stringent version that prevents the carry outside the home, nor will it change the way states or cities regulate them other than to prevent them from effectively banning ownership/possession completely.
Doc