Actually, the state reaction against Brown v Board of Education is the inverse of my example. The federal government was justified in its actions because of the Supreme Court ruling. Just as individual states would have standing against orders and/or legislation that would try to negate 2nd Amendment rights confirmed through Heller. And, due to the 10th Amendment, they could use their legal standing just as the federal government did after Brown. Conversely, if an individual state rejected McDonald, the feds (if they were willing) could enforce it. It is, after all, the law of the land.originally posted by hopyard:
What ifs aren't arguments. And using Brown v Board of Education is precisely the best example to argue against
Ike enforced that court ruling against the states using both Federal troops and Federal LEOs.
The use of Federal Marshals, the 101st Airborne, and Federalization of the National Guard were precisely necessary because
local officials determined that they would not obey what they considered unconstitutional Federal laws no matter what the
Supreme Court had to say or order on the matter. History proved them wrong.
Yes they did. A clear decision that stated an Individual right...not as part of a "state militia"...not under the auspices of "hunting, or recreation"...not even a statement that it would pertain only to single shot weapons or weapons from the 18th century...but a decision of individual protection with commonly owned weapons of today.originally posted by hopyard
As for what you claim, the Supreme Court has clearly stated what the Constitution reads concerning the 2nd Amendment,
you are right. But they didn't say what you think they said. That's why D.C. still has horribly restrictive anti-gun-owner laws,
and not much has changed since Heller.
So, DC worked to change their laws enough to satisfy "reasonable regulation" requirements. Those requirements will have to be fought up the legal ladder as well. Chicago has been ordered to tweak its laws, and Illinois told to pass better legislation with "reasonable requirements". What they look like, and whether or not they stand up to Supreme Court scrutiny is still to be determined. However, outright bans, or regulations resulting in de facto bans are clearly un-Constitutional.
Did either decision turn D.C. or Chicago into Arizona, Alaska, or Utah? No, they didn't. Yet, Heller was a landmark decision on the federal level, and McDonald one for the state level. The Court could have agreed with the post-modern interpretation and ruled "hunting, recreation, or early-American weapons" only. Or, they could have ruled that the National Guard fulfilled the militia requirements and that we do not possess an individual right to a firearm. The majority didn't. They held that we, as law abiding citizens, do possess the individual right to keep and bear arms for our self defense.
Members of state and local governments take a similar oath to the Constitution as do federal officials. They possess as much right to defend their citizens and those rights as does the federal government. That was my take on the letter from the Sheriff's Association: "We will defend our citizens' Constitutional rights."
State governments were the instruments of soft and hard "tyranny" during the Civil Rights struggle. My parents were turned down for apartments, jobs, etc. simply due to our hispanic last name and heritage. The Civil Rights Act changed that. Sometimes slowly...sometimes swiftly. Almost 50 years later, it is very different for my children than it was for my parents, or myself. The federal government, following Supreme Court decisions and legislation based on many of those decisions, forced the necessary changes to make that difference. Today it is quite often the federal government that engages in soft and hard "tyranny" and many states are following the Supreme Court decisions and precedents. To me, the states have an equal obligation to preserve our rights today, as the feds did years ago. Hopefully, my children and grandchildren will have a very different view of our federal government. And they will walk in to their voting booths with their quite legal openly-carried personal firearms. (I can dream, can't I?)...just my .02