Mike Church on the 2nd amendment ruling

[Glock17]

I generally listen to and enjoy Mike Church, but something he said recently really bothered me.

He said the decision was wrong because it was pushing the 2nd amendment on states, which according to him, have a right to regulate guns. His argument is that the constitution only applies to federal government.

Here is a transcript of his thoughts on the matter.

I don't buy that argument on several grounds. Most importantly that if I get pulled over by a town or state cop then I have no 4th and 5th amendment protections? I would only have such protections in court if it were a federal court?

Also, since his argument is that a state government should come before the federal government, than a federal government is a toothless weak government, then the protections afforded through its Constitution are also generally weak and toothless.

[Drylok]

I don't buy that argument on several grounds. Most importantly that if I get pulled over by a town or state cop then I have no 4th and 5th amendment protections? I would only have such protections in court if it were a federal court?

Also, since his argument is that a state government should come before the federal government, than a federal government is a toothless weak government, then the protections afforded through its Constitution are also generally weak and toothless.

Very good what you say there about the 4th and 5th amendment. Another argument would be that McDonald applies to the states and applies bearing arms not just keeping them. After all media outlets are not bound to their homes to exercise the right to free press nor is religion

If the state government should come before the federal, then I suppose that means he supports the AZ illegal immigration law???

[Adam-12]

He said the decision was wrong because it was pushing the 2nd amendment on states, which according to him, have a right to regulate guns. His argument is that the constitution only applies to federal government.

He's actually quite right. This is a great example of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

[Glock17]

He's actually quite right. This is a great example of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Does that mean that the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments don't apply to us if the person infringing that right isn't an agent of a federal government?

[Adam-12]

Does that mean that the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments don't apply to us if the person infringing that right isn't an agent of a federal government?

That's correct. Connecticut had an official religion until 1813, and Massachusetts required everyone by law to belong to a recognized church until 1833, for example. Today, eight states still have clauses in their Constitutions that prohibit atheists from holding public office, though the SCOTUS ruled them unenforceable in 1961, citing incorporation.

Many states' constitutions gave the same protections as the US Constitution, and that's a good thing, but incorporation is a bad thing: it gives the federal government power to veto state laws and steamroll over state supremacy.

[Glock17]

That's correct. Connecticut had an official religion until 1813, and Massachusetts required everyone by law to belong to a recognized church until 1833, for example. Today, eight states still have clauses in their Constitutions that prohibit atheists from holding public office, though the SCOTUS ruled them unenforceable in 1961, citing incorporation.

Many states' constitutions gave the same protections as the US Constitution, and that's a good thing, but incorporation is a bad thing: it gives the federal government power to veto state laws and steamroll over state supremacy.

That is true, but in regards to the 2nd amendment, that right rests with "The People"

In regards to the individual state's religions that can be read because it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". It says nothing about individual states' legislatures respecting an establishment of religion.


The parts of the 2nd, 4th, and 5th that specifically apply to individuals is because of the use of the words "The People". The right of the people to be secure in their persons, bear arms, etc means that the right is invested in the people and no government, not a state government or federal government can take that away.

It is further codified with the 10th amendment which reads

"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"

Therefore since the constitution specifically says that the right to bear arms is vested in the people, therefore no state or federal government can infringe upon that right.

[IronButt]

Church is correct, I think. The federal government is limited to what they are allowed to regulate by the Constitution. If it isn't spelled out in the Constitution, the federal gov has no business sticking their noses into it.

States have their rights to govern their constituents. The logic behind this, is that the local government is better equipped to address the needs of their particular population. For instance, if the population of PA votes to make the official state religion Quaker, the federal government, according to the Constitution, can't prevent it. If you're in the minority & can't stand living around Quakers, then you can move to MD, where the official religion is Catholic. Or NJ where it's Jewish.

Now this has gotten twisted around over the years, but that was the intention of the founding fathers.

The founding fathers meant for the Bill of Rights & Constitution to be read by the individual citizens of America. They're very simple & straightforward documents. They didn't intend to have "opinions" of what lawyers think a certain sentence in them means this particular month, forced upon the citizenry.

[Kratos]

Many states' constitutions gave the same protections as the US Constitution, and that's a good thing, but incorporation is a bad thing: it gives the federal government power to veto state laws and steamroll over state supremacy.

I'm all for states rights and the states exercised their rights when they incorporated the Bill of Rights. The federal government didn't force each states representatives to vote for the 14th amendment. The Bill of Rights guarantees the freedoms this country was founded on. Do you really think states rights should trump the preservation of those freedoms. When the majority of the states representatives voted for the 14th amendment, they agreed their state's power should be limited to preserve those freedoms.


Having fewer laws is never a bad thing.

[LittleRedToyota]

His argument is that the constitution only applies to federal government.

that was originally correct.

but you have to pretend the 14th amendment doesn't exist to argue it is still correct today.

[press1280]

I heard it too. I understand what he's saying, that incorporation has increased the scope of the Federal courts to the point that they're pushing the states around and creating rights(like abortion) not in the Constitution.
BUT.....by his interpretation, Slaughter House was correct in its interpretation of the privleges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. That view makes no sense; the Amendment was passed to help the newly freed slaves. I don't think the freed slaves were overly concerned about traveling navigable waterways, visiting the US mint, or getting diplomatic protection abroad.