Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News Articles' started by thorkyl, Nov 24, 2009.
Files the brief
Texas AG Sues City of **Chicago** Over Second Amendment! Alamo City Pundit
:banger: That's what I'm talking about!
I think this is "BS". The 2nd amendment to the Constitution is to prevent the FEDERAL government from passing laws to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. The STATES have the right to decide. I'm sorry, but this will just further degrade the sanctity of our Constitution. And before anybody jumps all over me about "Incorporation" that is an entirely different issue.
The Bill of Rights applies to the states also. Or do you think that a state LE agency does not have to follow Miranda, allow you counsel, or the state and local courts do not have to provide you with a speedy trial, etc?
The right to arm and defend yourself and your family is a God given right, the Second Amendment only keeps the government from infringing on it. State, federal, it doesn't matter.
Acetone, I think your language is a little strong. Most legal analysts believe that the second amendment will indeed be incorporated in the Supreme Court's ruling in the pending case. It's not "BS," as you say. It's valid constitutional law. Otherwise, the city of El Paso (or any other American city)could, if it wanted to, ban all of your guns within the city limits. That would not be a good result for any Texan.
Could you please show me in the Constitution where the Federal government was given the power to tell the states that they have to read Miranda?
Yes sir, a little strong. I do apologize. The States have always been sovereign, so the idea of the Federal government telling them to do something that was not enumerated is unconstitutional. Most Constitutional scholars ignore that fact.
Miranda ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the 5th amendment self-incrimination clause and 6th smendment right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and the suspect had then waived them. Thus, Miranda's conviction was overturned.
The ruling meant that non federal jurisdictions were bound to those amendments.
So why are states bound to those amendments but not to the 2nd?