Bartholomew Roberts
Member
As to what the antis will try next, they telegraphed their strategy nicely in the Brady Amicus Brief. They intend to fight us on the level of scrutiny issue by pushing for a rational basis review of an actual enumerated right in the original Bill of Rights (a horrid concept in its own right) and failing that, they will claim to offer an "intermediate scrutiny" test that has the same result as a rational basis review.
This is why the series of cases establishing scrutiny will be so important. You can't just go up to SCOTUS and say "What level of scrutiny? Tell me right now!" or you will not like the answer you get. You have to lead them down the path bit by bit until you have built up a foundation of strict scrutiny out of little cases.
For example: "Is it OK to ban a gun based on its color? Is it OK to ban a handgun that police may possess on the basis that it is unsafe? Is it OK to ban semi-automatic handguns but not revolvers?" etc.
You have a really poor understanding of 14th Amendment. Numerous Representatives and Senators specifically pointed to the disarming of freed black slaves by local authorities and racist gangs as one of the problems the 14th Amendment was meant to solve. They expressly indicated that the right to bear arms would be one of the rights the 14th Amendment would extend to the states, in order to protect black minorities.
That RKBA intent was gutted by the Supreme Court in the Cruikshank case where despite the clear legislative history and the statements of the 39th Congress, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second was only a restraint on the Federal government. The Supreme Court similarly gutted other more direct applications of the 14th Amendment in the Slaughterhouse cases, which was the whole reason the doctrine of selective incorporation through substantive due process was invented in the 1900s.
Currently the Second Amendment is NOT incorporated against the states. So how is that whole "the Feds have no right to limit the States' rights to do what they want as it relates to firearms" working for us? Has that been a winner for the last 80 or so years?
Note that despite the Second Amendment not being incorporated, the Feds have been able to enact all the current regulation through their power to to regulate interstate commerce. Note also that current SCOTUS interpretations of that clause are already more than enough to give the Feds power of purely intrastate commerce in firearms.
You also appear confused about what the Bill of Rights does. The Bill of Rights is not an example of what rights the Feds may regulate for everyone, it is an example of what rights are inviolable by either state or federal governments. The 14th Amendment says that if the state governments attempt to violate that right, the federal government may step in to stop it.
This is gibberish. It doesn't make any coherent argument that I can reply to and I'm not sure I would want to have the discussion if you did frame it in a coherent manner. Suffice it to say that the 14th Amendment does not give the government power to pass universal health care, firearms bans, or cap and trade.
This is why the series of cases establishing scrutiny will be so important. You can't just go up to SCOTUS and say "What level of scrutiny? Tell me right now!" or you will not like the answer you get. You have to lead them down the path bit by bit until you have built up a foundation of strict scrutiny out of little cases.
For example: "Is it OK to ban a gun based on its color? Is it OK to ban a handgun that police may possess on the basis that it is unsafe? Is it OK to ban semi-automatic handguns but not revolvers?" etc.
jmortimer said:
You have a really poor understanding of 14th Amendment. Numerous Representatives and Senators specifically pointed to the disarming of freed black slaves by local authorities and racist gangs as one of the problems the 14th Amendment was meant to solve. They expressly indicated that the right to bear arms would be one of the rights the 14th Amendment would extend to the states, in order to protect black minorities.
That RKBA intent was gutted by the Supreme Court in the Cruikshank case where despite the clear legislative history and the statements of the 39th Congress, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second was only a restraint on the Federal government. The Supreme Court similarly gutted other more direct applications of the 14th Amendment in the Slaughterhouse cases, which was the whole reason the doctrine of selective incorporation through substantive due process was invented in the 1900s.
Currently the Second Amendment is NOT incorporated against the states. So how is that whole "the Feds have no right to limit the States' rights to do what they want as it relates to firearms" working for us? Has that been a winner for the last 80 or so years?
Note that despite the Second Amendment not being incorporated, the Feds have been able to enact all the current regulation through their power to to regulate interstate commerce. Note also that current SCOTUS interpretations of that clause are already more than enough to give the Feds power of purely intrastate commerce in firearms.
You also appear confused about what the Bill of Rights does. The Bill of Rights is not an example of what rights the Feds may regulate for everyone, it is an example of what rights are inviolable by either state or federal governments. The 14th Amendment says that if the state governments attempt to violate that right, the federal government may step in to stop it.
This is gibberish. It doesn't make any coherent argument that I can reply to and I'm not sure I would want to have the discussion if you did frame it in a coherent manner. Suffice it to say that the 14th Amendment does not give the government power to pass universal health care, firearms bans, or cap and trade.