Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Federal Weapons Ban

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, USA
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    I have been reading that the 2nd ammendment has not been confirmed as binding on the states, and that this is one reason why some are reluctant to pass the concealled carry reciprocity law. Apparently the bill of rights was not ratified by the states as a whole, but amendment by amendment. Many states don't feel that the 2nd amendment is binding upon them, and that therefore guns are a state issue.

    So if that is true, and the 2nd amendment is only binding on the federal government then why can't I carry my gun in a post office or other federal building? If the 2a only applies to the feds, but I can't carry on federal property...then what the hell good is it?



  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Incorporation of the Second Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment and against the State is grinding its way through the legal system now.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    The 9th district just incorporated it this year under the due process clause of the 14th IIRC. (Nordyke V. King) http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...20/0715763.pdf

    At least one otherdistrict already had incorporated it. A case against a Chicago suburb (7th district)has just been appealed to the SCOTUS, and since there is a division among the circuits they will most likely hear it soon.

    As for the history, one could arguably say that the bill of rights wan't originally applied to the states however; most people who muse over these things, including myself believe that upon ratification of the 14 amendment itdid apply. Looking at the history it was clear that the drafters of the 14th wanted the 2A to apply to the states as the former slave states were disarming free blacks.

    If you read the Nordyke link above you'll get some interesting information.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Cameron, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    271

    Post imported post

    Why is the second amendment the only one that only applys to the feds. Yet the 14th amendment applys directly to individuals, as in ,I am not allowed to have slaves. I am not being raceist I am just using it to make a point. And every other one applys to all government in the US from town and county all the way to federal.



  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Hillmann wrote:
    Why is the second amendment the only one that only applys to the feds. Yet the 14th amendment applys directly to individuals, as in ,I am not allowed to have slaves. I am not being raceist I am just using it to make a point. And every other one applys to all government in the US from town and county all the way to federal.

    I think mostly because of a bad decision by the supreme court in the Slaughterhouse Cases.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases

    Because the court adopted a very narrow interpretation of the 14th each amendment in the BOR would have to be incorporated one by one to apply to the states.

    From what I've read, I believe there is are 5 justices on the supreme court currentlywho think the cases were wrongly decided. So I'm hoping this stuff gets heard now before Obama can appoint anyone else.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, USA
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    Hillmann wrote:
    Why is the second amendment the only one that only applys to the feds.
    It seems to me that it doesn't even apply to them...I still can't carry in post offices, or federal buildings...



  7. #7
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    Well, though I wouldn't go doing it, whether carrying into a federal building is actually unlawful is up for debate.

    You see, the law stating you can't carry into a federal has this little exemption for other lawful purposes, I would contend that self defense is a lawful purpose.

    Like I said, don't do it as there is nothing but interpretation supporting my theory, and IANAL.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    TriCityOC wrote:
    I have been reading that the 2nd ammendment has not been confirmed as binding on the states, and that this is one reason why some are reluctant to pass the concealled carry reciprocity law. Apparently the bill of rights was not ratified by the states as a whole, but amendment by amendment. Many states don't feel that the 2nd amendment is binding upon them, and that therefore guns are a state issue.

    So if that is true, and the 2nd amendment is only binding on the federal government then why can't I carry my gun in a post office or other federal building? If the 2a only applies to the feds, but I can't carry on federal property...then what the hell good is it?

    Many states have some form of private firearm ownership right (their version of the 2nd amendment). So even if the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states most states still can't legally make laws restricting the right to arms. Some states do have provisions in their bill of rights to allow certain restrictions to be enacted though.

    I've asked the same question. Why is it that the 2nd amendment is not incorporated, yet every other amendment in the bill of rights is? If the 2nd amendment is supposed to be a limit on the federal government why then does federal infringement on the right to keep and bear arms exist?

    We have the NFA 1934, the GCA 1968, the Lautenburg Amendment, the Brady Act, airport secured areas, and more. All of those are federal regulations (infringements) in violation of the 2nd amendment. If the 2nd amendment is supposed to limit only the federal government then why isn't it applied to the federal government? Instead we have the NICS background checks, practical bans on certain modes of fire, federal laws that prohibit sales to some people, and areas declared off-limits to firearms by the federal government.

    And the biggest question of all, If the 2nd amendment applies to the federal government why does the ATF still exist?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •