This is a discussion on Who Should Protect Our Rights...Federal or State Government within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by mlr1m Why would any government want to protect the individual rights of citizens? It serves no purpose to them. We are in ...
The correct answer is, "false". It's up to us to protect our rights. We need to promote good candidates for office and supervise how they select judges. There are rights we have as against the United States, and as against the state we live in. And as a student of history and the law, I tell you I am absolutely amazed at how much each generation of Americans has voluntarily given up. Amazed at the stupidity and short-sightedness. As Benjamin Franklin predicted (he knew I'd be amazed).
Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com
Nothing I say as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice. Legal questions should be presented to a competent attorney licensed to practice in the relevant state.
I vote FED for 2A as it is a national document that guarantees that particular right. I believe that states should recognize and support that right and ideally should have similar provisions in their own state constitutions.
Actually, it's not that the FED should support that right, they just shouldn't do anything to hamper/impeede it.
"Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less."
"Save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword" - Gen. R. E. Lee
That original purpose was changed with the ratification of the 14th amendment. At that point in time, the individual states GAVE UP their rights to legislate the rights enumerated in the BOR.
You can argue until you are blue in the face (and hold your breath and kick your feet too) but you cannot conclude that states rights continue to include the original amendments to the constitution and that the federal gov has no ability to legislate there. That position fails to include the 14th amendment which is a duly enacted and ratified part of the Constitution within its rationale.
This is why the "States' Rights" argument fails completely when discussing the RTKBA. Just as it does when discussing speech, religion, search & seizure, self incrimination, etc. The issue is moot because when the 14th was ratified, the individual states ceded that power.
If both the State Govt & Fed Govt would just keep their doggone hands completely off of our rights they would not need much protecting.
Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ
I think the reason Cruishank has not been overturned with respect to 2A has to do with courts and their mindset. Most of the time they are dealing with criminal matters, and judges get into an anti-mentality after seeing case after case after case of rampant gun crime. Then they search for excuses to rule in particular ways which they think will enhance society's safety.
I don't think the entire question (series of issues and questions) have really been addressed in a comprehensive way. It has been piecemeal. And 2A is the piece still hanging out there. None of this is logically neat or clean or nice. What we have is one mess piled onto of another mess on top of yet a third mess; and everyone is thinking "the law" (especially the constitution) must be a thing of beauty; it is not.
Yes, the Federal government has no power to intrude on state government. It has no role in state government at all.
The fact that you think my views are inconsistent demonstrate you still don't understand what I am discussing. Our rights are God given. We have them at conception. We form governments to protect those rights. We are subject ot the jurisdiction of two socereign governments: Federal and State. The Federal government has specific enumerated powers and the Bill of Rights enumerates specific prohibitions on that government.
The states have the power, unless restricted by their state constitution, to enact whatever measures the people see fit. The Federal government is not a higher authority than state government. Did you read Federalist 45, which I posted specifically for your benefit?
Huh? I expect the citizens to physically vote for their representatives. These representatives will assure our rights as they do in virtually every state in the Union. You, and many others, speak of the government as the enemy, an uncontrolled entity. The fact is that we choose the government. We are the government.Do you expect the citizens of the states to actually physically need to fight to retain their rights? What a ridiculous position.
Would you give up your right to keep and bear arms? Would you give up your right to speak freely? Would you give up your right to travel from city to city? Exactly what right would you voluntarily give up?That original purpose was changed with the ratification of the 14th amendment. At that point in time, the individual states GAVE UP their rights to legislate the rights enumerated in the BOR.
Are you beginning to understand why your argument is flawed? The states never ceded power nor rights to the Federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment was solely aimed at providing citizenship for the newly freed slaves. It has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.
Can you point out where the Bill of Rights is mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment? This should be enlightening.You can argue until you are blue in the face (and hold your breath and kick your feet too) but you cannot conclude that states rights continue to include the original amendments to the constitution and that the federal gov has no ability to legislate there. That position fails to include the 14th amendment which is a duly enacted and ratified part of the Constitution within its rationale.
I urge you to read Charles Fairman's 1949 Stanford Law Review Article. It is the seminal work on the issue.
I would be interested to know, since you don't believe the 14th Amendment applies the BOR to the states, what exactly you believe the 14th Amendment does do, and why you believe it to be so limited.