Originally posted at
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1212025
==========Original Question:==========
Has anyone thought about the possible impact this case could have on the US?
I'm talking about states that have some asinine guns laws (CA, NY, NJ,
etc...) Being a former NY'er, I can only hope that this changes a few laws.
Things I hope change, but don't really expect to:
New York either making their pistol permits shall issue, or doing away with
them for purchasing and owning a pistol. Also if they do go to a shall issue
system, mandate that permits must be issued to non residents, or allow for
reciprocal agreements with other states.
For the silly AWB's to either be found unconstitutional or watered down.
Legalize the bearing of firearms... I doubt that happens.
Who else has some things they hope change?
==========My response:==========
In my mind, the real risk is that they'll find that the "selective
incorporation" doctrine is obsolete, and that the 2nd is incorporated
because the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states through the "due
process clause" of the 14th.
One of the ways in which the United States has been acquiring power is by
eliminating the "checks and balances" in the Constitution. And one of those
is the division of authority and power between the United States and the
individual states. They are designed to be parallel governments with wholly
different areas of responsibility. By saying that the rules that keep the
United States from doing certain things apply to the states, the United
States removes the power to do the things States were set up to do from the
states. Leaving the States with no authority or power.
On the other hand, what's the value of application of the 2nd amendment to
the states? What the court will say is that it's subject to "reasonable
regulation", just as Justice Scalia said about the District of Washington.
They just won't be able to absolutely prohibit gun ownership, possession,
and use. But they can come right up to the line.
Here's my opinion: the United States has no authority whatsoever, under the
2nd to "infringe" the right to keep and bear any arms whatsoever. Under the
Constitution as written, you've got an absolute right as to the United
States, to have tactical nuclear weapons if you want to. But the people of
your state can enact whatever rules they want to regarding weapons, subject
to their own constitutions. By making the Bill of Rights a "one size fits
all" that applies to both the U.S. and the states in the same way, the U.S.
strengthens its own power to do whatever it wants to do in violation of the
Bill of Rights, weakens the power of the states, and promotes tyranny.
The "due process" clause of the 14th was designed to ensure that the same
legal procedures apply to everyone within a state, black or white, rich or
poor. That's never been implemented. Instead, it's being used to say that
people have the same rights vis-a-vis the state they live in, as they have
with respect to the United States. And clearly, we need regulation of
"speech" under state law, and that's why we have laws regarding libel and
slander. Virginia has a statute that makes it a crime to "curse or verbally
abuse" another person. If the first amendment, as written, applied to the
states, there could be absolutely no regulation of speech at all. And
clearly that's not reasonable, so the United States says that the same rules
apply to the states as to the United States, but that they're subject to
"reasonable regulation".
=====
