3 ms·

Early precedent was that only the federal govt was limited for all of the bill of rights. For example in 1876 United States v. Cruikshank found that the 1st an

by dmm 7y ago

Early precedent was that only the federal govt was limited for all of the bill of rights. For example in 1876 United States v. Cruikshank found that the 1st and 2nd amendments only applied to the federal govt. Over time the supreme court has begun applying the bill of rights to states as well in a process known as Incorporation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...

Retric 7y ago
The issue I am bringing up is Incorporation is not a neutral stance. The 2nd amendment was in effect keeping the states armed not individuals. It’s a reinterpretation to say that it applies to people rather than as a limitation on just the federal government. I am not saying it’s unjustified, just new.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Incorporation doesn’t say anything either way. The fact that the first amendment didn’t apply to the states until it was incorporated via the 14th says nothing about whether it was initially viewed as a collective right or a personal right. Same for any other right in the bill of rights. Most evidence points to the fact that the second amendment was viewed from inception as an individual right. Especially if you look at the state proposals for the second amendment, which allow exceptions for things like individual circumstances (e.g. people who had participated in a rebellion). McDonald said nothing new, or what wasn’t already obvious.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Considering how concise the constitution’s language is, the second amendment’s wording is clearly representing something. What that is and why it’s there is debatable. But, plenty of evidence exists that many states did not want this to be unlimited, the language was not direct, and the implementation gave states the option to limit things. That is plenty of room for debate, and in fact this topic has seen plenty of them over time.

by dmm 7y ago

Retric 7y ago

The issue I am bringing up is Incorporation is not a neutral stance. The 2nd amendment was in effect keeping the states armed not individuals. It’s a reinterpretation to say that it applies to people rather than as a limitation on just the federal government. I am not saying it’s unjustified, just new.

rayiner 7y ago
Incorporation doesn’t say anything either way. The fact that the first amendment didn’t apply to the states until it was incorporated via the 14th says nothing about whether it was initially viewed as a collective right or a personal right. Same for any other right in the bill of rights. Most evidence points to the fact that the second amendment was viewed from inception as an individual right. Especially if you look at the state proposals for the second amendment, which allow exceptions for things like individual circumstances (e.g. people who had participated in a rebellion). McDonald said nothing new, or what wasn’t already obvious.
- Retric 7y ago
  Considering how concise the constitution’s language is, the second amendment’s wording is clearly representing something. What that is and why it’s there is debatable. But, plenty of evidence exists that many states did not want this to be unlimited, the language was not direct, and the implementation gave states the option to limit things. That is plenty of room for debate, and in fact this topic has seen plenty of them over time.