• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

Yes. But as you know, the creation of thw 14th was in direct response to states abusing, infringing and ignoring the rights of (some of) their people. How do you suppose this be reconciled, if not for the expansion of the protections of the bill or rights?

That is, if the state abuses your rights, who else do you turn to if not the federal government?

The 14th amendment had specific purposes for each section. I'll focus on the three that are relevant to this discussion:

Section 1: This was two-fold: 1 it was to grant citizenship to any person born or naturalized in the US (overturning Dred Scott) and 2. It applied Article IV, section 2 to within a States as well as between states. According to Corfield v. Coryell this was partial defined as "The right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the state; may be mentioned as some of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens, which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental: to which may be added, the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the state in which it is to be exercised." Section one basically made it some that this type of approach was taken within states. All citizens of a state were to be treated equally. Special taxes, restrictions on movement, prohibitions on trade, denial of habeus corpus etc could not occur. This was in response to the "black codes" that created special laws that only affected one group of citizens and not another and thus treated citizens unequally. This "equal treatment under the law" interpretation was was confirmed in the way that Article IV section two was defined in Paul v. Virgina.

Section 2: Basically guaranteed Article IV, section 4. If the right to vote was removed from certain populations, the government could not be representative of the entire population. It doesn't deny the State's ability to remove the right to vote from certain populations. It just describes how that action would lead to a reduction in representation.

Sections 3 and 4 were about the civil war itself and aren't relevent to the conversation.

Section 5: Pretty straightforward. Grants congress authority to enforce the provisions.

The key to the 14th is the "some of" that you put in parentheses. Sections 1 and 2, when combined, assured what was supposed to be equal treatment under the law of all citizens within a state.

If all citizens within a state are treated equally under the law, the 14th wouldn't apply to said State's laws.

As you know, part of the problem was the denial of the right to vote, both outright and by proxy.


Again, as you know, part of the problem was the denial of the right to vote, both outright and by proxy.

And that's definitely part of what the 14th was addressing. It was to assure equal treatment under the law for all citizens within a state (i.e. extending Article IV, section 2 to the treatment of citizens within a state, instead of just between states). It wasn't about equal laws for all states, however.

Incorporation, however, is about equality of laws between all states. It extends the limitations that the BoR places upon the Federal Government to the States. I am of the mind that this should require a specific amendment designed for that purpose. Something simple like "The limitations placed upon the Federal Government authority by Amendments 1 through 8 are also limitations placed upon the States" would suffice.

I would support such an amendment in a heart beat. The fact that it currently requires judicial intervention to determine if the amendments were indeed limitations on the states is proof that this is legislation from the bench. Teh fact that some things have yet to be incorporated only exacerbates the arbitrary nature of this legislation.
 
It does say that this amendment may not be infringed.

When they make laws that infringe on our right to bear arms it is unconstitutional.

Sp screw the 14th amendment. It has nothing to do with bearing arms.
 
It does say that this amendment may not be infringed.

When they make laws that infringe on our right to bear arms it is unconstitutional.

Sp screw the 14th amendment. It has nothing to do with bearing arms
.
False, it has everything to do with it. The fourteenth incorporates all rights to the states, which honestly was just a way of asserting that the federal is charged with enforcing rights even against the states rather than granting them. Historically, and Justice Thomas cited this; The fourteenth extended especially to voting and gun control because of the states intitially trying to deny those two crucial rights to freed slaves. So historically the 14th is critical to this case.
 
I said nothing about owning a car. I said driving. In order to drive, legally, in Ohio, what are the rules, Goobie?

So you want gun classes in high school like they have drivers ed in high school(which I wouldn't mind seeing how it doesn't actually infringe on the right to keep and bear arms,if its just a extra curricular class) and license in order to legally shoot a gun outside private property?
 
Last edited:
False, it has everything to do with it. The fourteenth incorporates all rights to the states, which honestly was just a way of asserting that the federal is charged with enforcing rights even against the states rather than granting them. Historically, and Justice Thomas cited this; The fourteenth extended especially to voting and gun control because of the states intitially trying to deny those two crucial rights to freed slaves. So historically the 14th is critical to this case.

I kind of disagree with that, constitutional rights applied at the state and local level before the 14th. Section 1 of the 14th just made the freed slaves into US citizens so that states could not have an excuse to deny them constitutional rights.
 
False, it has everything to do with it. The fourteenth incorporates all rights to the states, which honestly was just a way of asserting that the federal is charged with enforcing rights even against the states rather than granting them. Historically, and Justice Thomas cited this; The fourteenth extended especially to voting and gun control because of the states intitially trying to deny those two crucial rights to freed slaves. So historically the 14th is critical to this case.

It says somewhere in the constitution to the effect that certain amendments can not be construed to infringe upon other amendments.
 
I kind of disagree with that, constitutional rights applied at the state and local level before the 14th.

False. The BoR did not apply to the states before the 14th. they didn't even apply to the States for years after the 14th. See Baron V. Baltimore foir before th e14th and United States v. Cruikshank for after the 14th (and specifically about the First and Second amendments).
 
Last edited:
False. The BoR did not apply to the states before the 14th. they didn't even apply to the States for years after the 14th. See Baron V. Baltimore foir before th e14th and United States v. Cruikshank for after the 14th (and specifically about the First and Second amendments).

Who did the bill of rights apply to before the 14th amendment?
 
False. The BoR did not apply to the states before the 14th. they didn't even apply to the States for years after the 14th. See Baron V. Baltimore foir before th e14th and United States v. Cruikshank for after the 14th (and specifically about the First and Second amendments).

Where does it say constitutional rights now apply at the state and local level? Dred Scott v. Sandford ruled that blacks could never be citizens and that the constitution did not apply them, the 14th overturned this ruling by making freed slaves and their descendants into American citizens.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
It says somewhere in the constitution to the effect that certain amendments can not be construed to infringe upon other amendments.
True, but only when applied against the BOR amendments, in other words if amendments 11 and on are found to be a mistake they may be stricken by amendment later on, whereas you may not amend the constitution to abridge speech, repeal the second, allow unreasonable search and seizure, etc. The fourteenth however still binds the federal protections to the states.

I kind of disagree with that, constitutional rights applied at the state and local level before the 14th. Section 1 of the 14th just made the freed slaves into US citizens so that states could not have an excuse to deny them constitutional rights.
Correct, but as Tucker well pointed out we are at a point now where the states are testing BOR protections and now the federal is actually having to step in to correct that, much as I hate concentrated federal power the fourteenth when applied properly is actually something the fed is supposed to do.
 
True, but only when applied against the BOR amendments, in other words if amendments 11 and on are found to be a mistake they may be stricken by amendment later on, whereas you may not amend the constitution to abridge speech, repeal the second, allow unreasonable search and seizure, etc. The fourteenth however still binds the federal protections to the states.

Correct, but as Tucker well pointed out we are at a point now where the states are testing BOR protections and now the federal is actually having to step in to correct that, much as I hate concentrated federal power the fourteenth when applied properly is actually something the fed is supposed to do.

I agree that the 14th amendment did make the bill of rights stronger. Also it helped a lot to keep the supreme court in check.

There is much reform that should be done with all judges, including the supreme court. There is way too much conflict of interest and politics involved than their should be for equal justice to prevail.
 
I agree that the 14th amendment did make the bill of rights stronger. Also it helped a lot to keep the supreme court in check.

There is much reform that should be done with all judges, including the supreme court. There is way too much conflict of interest and politics involved than their should be for equal justice to prevail.
I don't have a problem with lifetime appointment of justices, you take the good with the bad. What I do have a problem with is that the checks on SCOTUS decisions are dependant on the SCOTUS not overturning the rewrite of a law, which is fine under an honest court, which we have mainly had in this country historically. The other thing that would be a great reform would be to make removal of justices easier, currently it would require a heinous crime to be committed against the people for a justice to be removed.....if we were serious there should be some lattitude for removing justices who routinely misinterpret or agendize the constitution they are sworn to uphold, of course that process would have to be tough.....the people should have that recourse.
 
I just love how the media describes this decision in their headline....

"Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide"


The Justices didn't and don't 'extend' any rights laid out in the constitution, they are supposed to uphold them.


j-mac
 
Where does it say constitutional rights now apply at the state and local level?

Incorporation via the 14th does that. That's judicial activism.

But what you said that was false was "constitutional rights applied at the state and local level before the 14th."

I gave you the rulings that clearly stated that was not the case. No part of the BoR didn't apply to the states before 1897.
 
But, weren't they a limitation of the federal government to protect our rights?

That sentence doesn't make sense. As worded, it can mean that you are asking if the following: "The federal government's ability to protect our rights was limited by the BoR" is a true statement.

Or it could be you asking if the BoR was designed to protect our rights from being infringed upon by the Federal Government.

Could you please clarify what you are asking me?
 
Last edited:
That sentence doesn't make sense. As worded, it can mean that you are asking if the following: "The federal government's ability to protect our rights was limited by the BoR" is a true statement.

Or it could be you asking if the BoR was designed to Protect our Rights from being infringed by the Federal Government.

Could you please clarify what you are asking me?

Was not the bill of rights intended to protect our basic rights?
 
Is two.:shrug:

No, you said "protect".

In order for the Bill of Rights to have been intended to protect certain rights, it would have had to grant authority to the Federal Government, not restrict authority form the federal government. In the preamble to the Bill of Rights, it clearly states that the bill of rights was restricting federal authority.
 
Last edited:
No, you said "protect".

In order for the Bill of Rights to have been intended to protect certain rights, it would have had to grant authority to the Federal Government, not restrict authority form the federal government. In the preamble to the Bill of Rights, it clearly states that the bill of rights was restricting federal authority.

**** the federal government. We the people are the government.
 
Back
Top Bottom