Besides all that, what makes you think that of all the amendments, the 2nd should remain unaffected by the 14th? What makes the 4th, for example, more important than the 2nd?
Posted by belacuse
2010-02-09 14:45:06


Thats an easy one. Without the 2nd, all others become just words. Because of national ignorance and sloth, the liberals sense a weekness when it comes to the 2nd. If only they can chip away a little at a time....we will just give away our only means to keep the govt in check. But ill let WU answer in his own words.

The Second Amendment is icky therefore it is not really really part of the Consitution, unlike abortion, and funding of art that smears feces on religious icons or places crosses into containers of urine which is why the revolution was fought in the first place.

Have an evil day.

Posted by whats_up
2010-02-09 12:45:53

I think it is you that is confused here. The Heller case was not about incorporation - that would be the McDonald case which has yet to be settled.

I also note that you seem confused about the first part of the footnote you quoted. Did you not understand what Scalia was talking about with regard to the first amendment there? The guys at SCOTUSblog seem to think Scalia inserted the deliberately vague footnote as a way to invite a case for incorporation. Which just so happened a year later with McDonald. Coincidence?

Besides all that, what makes you think that of all the amendments, the 2nd should remain unaffected by the 14th? What makes the 4th, for example, more important than the 2nd?

In their ruling the justices could have incorporated the 2nd amendment to apply to all states

No, that would have been judicial activism.

The Supreme Court can only rule on details of the case brought before it. It can not legislate from the bench and just make rulings on any law it wants to. The case in question did not incorporate state gun laws, so the decision can not include them.

Duh.

Posted by Mike_M
2010-02-09 12:42:30

Mike once again your ignorance is astounding. In their ruling the justices could have incorporated the 2nd amendment to apply to all states, not only did they not, they mentioned the opposite in footnote 23 where they said this:

With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois (citations omitted) and Miller v. Texas (citations omitted) reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

The Supreme Court can only rule on details of the case brought before it. It can not legislate from the bench and just make rulings on any law it wants to.
Posted by Mike_M 2010-02-09 12:42:30

Small correction, Mike...
"It can notis not suppose to legislate from the bench"

Pretty much. They are free to limit the second and or interpret it any way they feel will help them. But the other rights and non rights important to them are off limits and unprecedented.
Posted by tblrk2006 2010-02-09 12:37:12

I too am amazed by the Liberal mindset that thinks our Right to Bear Arms and our Freedom of Religion are still questions to be debated ad nasuem, but the legality and morality of abortion are 'settled'!

"Not at all Mike, and again they shied away from incorporating the states. Why do you think that is?"

You never miss an opportunity to demonstrate your ignorance, do you?

The Supreme Court can only rule on details of the case brought before it. It can not legislate from the bench and just make rulings on any law it wants to. The case in question did not incorporate state gun laws, so the decision can not include them.

Duh.

“I think there’s been some misinterpretation that I personally have declared martial law and taken away people’s right to bear arms and that’s erroneous,” May told WXII reporter Jermont Terry. “By law, statute 14-288.7 automatically went into effect.

This is the scariest part, to me. Just a public servant carrying out his orders -- whether they be to confiscate legally-owned firearms or to herd people into gas chambers. It's the law, see, there's nothing he can do.

Posted by DrEvil
2010-02-09 12:32:35

Pretty much. They are free to limit the second and or interpret it any way they feel will help them. But the other rights and non rights important to them are off limits and unprecedented.

So, according to the local leftists, States can limit gun rights which are acknowledged in the bill of rights, but apparently cannot limit abortion, a "right" which was invented by a vote of nine men back in the early 1970s.

Got it.

Have an Evil day

As you can see....the media, Whatsup, and the police cheif all cant read.

§ 14‑269. Carrying concealed weapons.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person willfully and intentionally to carry concealed about his person any bowie knife, dirk, dagger, slung shot, loaded cane, metallic knuckles, razor, shurikin, stun gun, or other deadly weapon of like kind, except when the person is on the person's own premises.

(a1) It shall be unlawful for any person willfully and intentionally to carry concealed about his person any pistol or gun except in the following circumstances:

(1) The person is on the person's own premises.

(2) The deadly weapon is a handgun, and the person has a concealed handgun permit issued in accordance with Article 54B of this Chapter or considered valid under G.S. 14‑415.24.

(3) The deadly weapon is a handgun and the person is a military permittee as defined under G.S. 14‑415.10(2a) who provides to the law enforcement officer proof of deployment as required under G.S. 14‑415.11(a).

(b) This prohibition shall not apply to the following persons:

(1) Officers and enlisted personnel of the armed forces of the United States when in discharge of their official duties as such and acting under orders requiring them to carry arms and weapons;

(2) Civil and law enforcement officers of the United States;

(3) Officers and soldiers of the militia and the national guard when called into actual service;

(4) Officers of the State, or of any county, city, town, or company police agency charged with the execution of the laws of the State, when acting in the discharge of their official duties;

(5) Sworn law‑enforcement officers, when off‑duty, provided that an officer does not carry a concealed weapon while consuming alcohol or an unlawful controlled substance or while alcohol or an unlawful controlled substance remains in the officer's body.

(b1) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that:

(1) The weapon was not a firearm;

(2) The defendant was engaged in, or on the way to or from, an activity in which he legitimately used the weapon;

(3) The defendant possessed the weapon for that legitimate use; and

(4) The defendant did not use or attempt to use the weapon for an illegal purpose.

The burden of proving this defense is on the defendant.

(b2) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that:

(1) The deadly weapon is a handgun;

(2) The defendant is a military permittee as defined under G.S. 14‑415.10(2a); and

(3) The defendant provides to the court proof of deployment as defined under G.S. 14‑415.10(3a).

(c) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. Any person violating the provisions of subsection (a1) of this section shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor for the first offense. A second or subsequent offense is punishable as a Class I felony.

(d) This section does not apply to an ordinary pocket knife carried in a closed position. As used in this section, "ordinary pocket knife" means a small knife, designed for carrying in a pocket or purse, that has its cutting edge and point entirely enclosed by its handle, and that may not be opened by a throwing, explosive, or spring action. (Code, s. 1005; Rev., s. 3708; 1917, c. 76; 1919, c. 197, s. 8; C.S., s. 4410; 1923, c. 57; Ex. Sess. 1924, c. 30; 1929, cc. 51, 224; 1947, c. 459; 1949, c. 1217; 1959, c. 1073, s. 1; 1965, c. 954, s. 1; 1969, c. 1224, s. 7; 1977, c. 616; 1981, c. 412, s. 4; c. 747, s. 66; 1983, c. 86; 1985, c. 432, ss. 1‑3; 1993, c. 539, s. 163; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1995, c. 398, s. 2; 1997‑238, s. 1; 2003‑199, s. 2; 2005‑232, ss. 4, 5; 2005‑337, s. 1; 2006‑259, s. 5(a).)

§ 14‑288.7. Transporting dangerous weapon or substance during emergency; possessing off premises; exceptions.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon or substance in any area:

(1) In which a declared state of emergency exists; or

(2) Within the immediate vicinity of which a riot is occurring.

(b) This section does not apply to persons exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14‑269 with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in while carrying out their duties.

(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (1969, c. 869, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 192; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

Posted by Mike_M
2010-02-09 12:02:24

Mike, the 10th amendment did nothing of the kind. Many states continue to restrict gun ownership.

I'm guessing you missed when the Supreme Court overturned the DC gun ban.

Posted by Mike_M
2010-02-09 11:57:09

Not at all Mike, and again they shied away from incorporating the states. Why do you think that is?

Sorry pumpkin but you have failed to understand the history of the 2nd amendment. Even in its most recent ruling the SC didnt incorporate the 2nd amendment to apply to the states. Please do a little homework on the issue, you wont look so foolish.
Posted by whats_up
2010-02-09 11:49:34


It didn't have to, you slobbering imbicile. The 10th Amendment does that.

Your reasoning is completely absurd anyways. Can a state suspend habeus corpus? Negate the 5th Amendment and compel people to testify against themselves? Conduct searches without warrants or probable cause? Of course not. Just like no state can unilaterally decide to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by Mike_M
2010-02-09 12:02:24


Sorry, WU...just b/c you want the govt, any govt, to take away the 2nd...it aint going to happen.

"Even in its most recent ruling the SC didnt incorporate the 2nd amendment to apply to the states."

It didn't have to, you slobbering imbicile. The 10th Amendment does that.

Your reasoning is completely absurd anyways. Can a state suspend habeus corpus? Negate the 5th Amendment and compel people to testify against themselves? Conduct searches without warrants or probable cause? Of course not. Just like no state can unilaterally decide to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

"States and Towns have and continue to restrict the right to bear arms."

I'm guessing you missed when the Supreme Court overturned the DC gun ban.

Sorry pumpkin, but your failing to grasp the authority of the bill of rights on this issue.

Posted by tblrk2006
2010-02-09 11:42:27

Sorry pumpkin but you have failed to understand the history of the 2nd amendment. Even in its most recent ruling the SC didnt incorporate the 2nd amendment to apply to the states. Please do a little homework on the issue, you wont look so foolish.

The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights and applies to every American, just like the First Amendment does. No individual town in American can make a law that superceded the 2nd, any more than they can make a law that superceded the 1st!

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-02-09 11:37:16

Historically speaking Stan this is incorrect. States and Towns have and continue to restrict the right to bear arms. The SC has never incorporated this to the states and townships, they have only said that it applies to the federal government not the states.

This shows your ignorance on the issue. The SC has ruled in the past that the 2nd amendment applies to the federal government but has not applied that same standard to local and state governments.
Posted by whats_up
2010-02-09 11:35:59



Sorry pumpkin, but your failing to grasp the authority of the bill of rights on this issue.

Posted by whats_up 2010-02-09 11:33:17

The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights and applies to every American, just like the First Amendment does. No individual town in American can make a law that superceded the 2nd, any more than they can make a law that superceded the 1st!

The Constitution over-rides all other laws. I know that is hard for a hard core progressive to understand, but, hey, try reading the actual Constitution.

Posted by William Teach
2010-02-09 11:20:35

William,

This shows your ignorance on the issue. The SC has ruled in the past that the 2nd amendment applies to the federal government but has not applied that same standard to local and state governments.

Posted by tblrk2006
2010-02-09 11:21:25

Actually this would be a good thread to debate the issue of wether the 2nd amendment applies to states and towns or not. The SC rulings in the past indicate that the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government and not the states or townships. The recent ruling by the SC muddies this somewhat.

Posted by tblrk2006
2010-02-09 10:24:35

Perhaps you should work to change the law, not disobey it.
Posted by whats_up
2010-02-09 11:15:20



Dont have to. Ive got the second on my side. If you dont like it perhaps you should change it. Your feeble attempts to chip away at it little by little are getting noticed. There is no limit to me protecting myself and my family when ever and where ever we are.

Perhaps you should work to change the law, not disobey it.

Posted by whats_up

The Constitution over-rides all other laws. I know that is hard for a hard core progressive to understand, but, hey, try reading the actual Constitution.

Guess no drunken joyriding with firearms this week... day-em. Law has only been in place since 1969...40 years later... OUTRAGE!
Posted by Robert_Ingersoll
2010-02-09 11:11:47


Right, b/c people always do that. Please. Your missing the entire point. Besides, just b/c something has been on the books doesnt make it right. Expect this to be ruled unconstitutional.

Law has only been in place since 1969...40 years later... OUTRAGE!
Posted by Robert_Ingersoll 2010-02-09 11:11:47

Oh, and that make it right, Bobbit? Idiot!

Posted by tblrk2006
2010-02-09 10:24:35

Perhaps you should work to change the law, not disobey it.

Hello....ACLU....anybody? There is no way I would follow this request and would urge NC residents to do the same.