Mike Church on the 2nd amendment ruling

[ungawa]

I know a guy who is very Pro-2A who feels the same way - it's violating states' rights.

However, since it is infringing state rights to the advantage of the rights of the people, I have no problem with it in this case.

[headcase]

The Constitution of the United States does not only apply to the Federal government. The tenth Amendment was supposed to clarify this, but many people have a pretty bad understanding of what it says. The rights recognised by the Constitution, and any other understood right, of the citizens of this Country, must be respected by the Federal and the State governments, because they are rights specific to the individual.

If a right is not understood to be an individual right, then unless the Constitution specifically allows the Federal government to regulate it, the power to do so falls to the State government. That is what it says, and that is what it means. The Federal government has every right to hold the States accountable when they step on an individual right. There should have been no need for the 14th Amendment, but it is there.

As far as national reciprocity goes, I don't really like it, but not because the Fed has no authority to make the states respect individual rights, rather because I don't believe the Fed has the right to make the regulations up as they relate to arms. I don't want them being able to define how I may carry, but they should force states to recognise the right of any citizen of the United States to carry.

[Defender]

Even if Mr. Church is correct, the Federal Govt always made laws, especially gun laws - against the states. Anyone remember the "Assault Weapons" ban, the Gun Control Act of 1968, or the 1934 law requiring a Federal Tax to own a fully automatic weapon? The 2nd Amendment hadn't been "incorporated" then, but the Feds still passed these gun laws which controlled your ability to purchase firearms.

[TaePo]

Article (IX)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article (X)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

IANAL but Article Nine (IX) mentions rights. Basically, it states that certain rights may have been mentioned in this Constitution, but this does not mean that there are not other rights not mentioned that are just as important to the people nor does it mean you should limit or deny the rights not mentioned in writing within the Constitution.

Article Ten (X) is speaking of powers. The Constitution is all about the limitations of and how much power is given to Federal authority. Recall the original governmental set-up did not work, the Articles of Confederation, because the Federal system was too weak and the states all thumbed their noses at it. So, a Federal system that had some power over the states was desired, but the forefathers did not want to give too much power to the Federal (or even a State) system on the other hand. Our forefathers also recognized that governments tend to become over reaching and try to consolidate more and more power (thus the 2A is an individual right to prevent this). This can be seen today, what with the war on drugs, the war on terror and the weak economy. These are perfect events for talking us into allowing more power to the government(s).

But even with that paranoia stripped away, I have always stated that there are three governing bodies recognized by the Constitution: the Federal Government, the State Governments and the Individual (yes, you are your own 'government') per the Tenth. If all three are seperate but equally important/necessary for our system to work, then that which belongs to the Feds is theirs, that to the States is their power, and that which is reserved to the Individual (both Powers AND Rights) belongs solely to that class. A power cannot be held by two or more. Only Individuals have rights. No single entity can hold a power unless it is given that power by the people as well.

Encompassing all of this in one ideal means that if a State interferes with an individual, the individual and the Federal government will fight the State. If it is a Federal unit violating an individual, then the individual and the State will fight the Federal government. If the Feds crack down on a State (assume unfairly or unjustly) then the State or States plus the people can fight against the Federal incursion. At first, the fight will be in the legal realm but could possibly spill over into warfare like in the American Civil War.

So, in my view, the 14th should not be necessary, at least for the 2A. By requiring incorporation, we open a Pandora's box that allows us to change the Bill of Rights. I do not believe we can change the B.o.R. but add to them. We may change or modify the powers given the Federal government but not inherent rights of the people. In other words, the same reason some do not like Federal approval on national carry or national reciprocity due to yielding control to the Feds that could later be revoked providing a horrible precedence will be the same logic used to later usurp the 2A through the 14th.