2nd Amendment Incorporated to States/Municipalities

[a_new_machine]

So, not sure if this is really news or not, but it looks like the Supreme Court has made some pretty important precedent today, ruling that the rights secured by the Second Amendment extend to states and muncipalities. By-the-numbers conservative v. liberal vote, no surprises there. I'm not too up on my 2nd Amendment law, but my impression was that

Comments

[dwer]

so... doesn't this strike a blow against states' rights?

Some people should be careful what they wish for.

[the_rukh]

That's what I'm thinking too. I'm waiting to see the arguments that come out of it. Will states rights suddenly be ignored because its an issue that is part of the conservative holy trinity?

[the_rukh]

No we understand the part about it become completely selective to back what you want it to back and not back what you don't want it to back, just like your special definition of 'constitutional'.

[mijopo]

I've always wondered how people thought the gov't would take away all our freedoms and leave the right to bear arms intact - and if they wouldn't, then the entire reason for the amendment goes poof anyway

There is an important difference with this amendment insofar as its prior existence sets in place a situation not easily erased by simple fiat, i.e., a government can eradicate the right by fiat but you're still looking at an armed citizenry.

[foolsguinea]

"I'm not a huge fan of the 2nd Amendment. I've always wondered how people thought the gov't would take away all our freedoms and leave the right to bear arms intact - and if they wouldn't, then the entire reason for the amendment goes poof anyway."

Uh, no. That's a historical misconception. The 2nd isn't really about the ability to overthrow the government. It's written in politicalese, but it was originally about the right of communities to form militias to protect society & the rule of law.

[a_new_machine]

The original history of the 2nd Amendment is pretty complicated and contentious. I doubt you'll find consensus among those who voted for it in Congress, and in the state-by-state ratification conventions as to what it really meant. I was more addressing the most common modern argument, though.

[qnetter]

Oh, you mean the National Guard. No other "militias" actually do anything to protect society & the rule of law.

[rasilio]

"I've always wondered how people thought the gov't would take away all our freedoms and leave the right to bear arms intact - and if they wouldn't, then the entire reason for the amendment goes poof anyway."

The point you miss is that most 2nd amendment advocates argue that it is this very right that serves as proof against the government taking away all other rights. Not that they think this is the last right they have remaining before total tyranny

[a_new_machine]

Except most such advocates would also argue that rights and privileges have been steadily eroded over the past sixty to eighty years. Seems either mutually exclusive, or probative of the question of whether the 2nd Amendment can possibly protect against abusive government.

[the_rukh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms

It has an interesting summary by country/region about their gun laws. I think you'll see that right/restriction on guns doesn't really have a lot to do with the quality of the government.

[the_rukh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law

a bit more ocuntries

Liberal "Logic"

[korean_guy_01]

2nd Amendment - we're concerned about states' rights
Roe v. Wade - we're not concerned about states' rights

Re: Liberal "Logic"

[a_new_machine]

Care to not troll? I could say, with equal validity:
Conservative "Logic"
Abortion/economic regulation/health care - we're concerned about states' rights
Gun control/Marriage recognition and definition - we're not concerned about states' rights

Re: Liberal "Logic"

[a_new_machine]

And? That's a reason they don't care about states' rights in those cases (unless you argue that states didn't have those rights before the Constitution). As my point was analogy to his reason-and-rationale-lacking statement (and was perhaps better restated as "empty argument is empty") it works perfectly.