Justice Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns

[andrsnsm]

Actually, the second amendment only applied to the federal government. Throughout history many municipalties restricted possession of firearms on the person. So, in a manner of speaking he is right.

Oh horse puckey. Remember the preamble? The part about "...a more perfect union" and the part about "......United Staes of America"? Remember those municipalities like Chicago and Washington DC that lost recent Supreme Court cases? Sorry PH, not buying it.

 

[LightningCrash]

Given our founding fathers' propensity for dueling, I believe he is wrong.

 

[purplehaze]

Until 1890 it only applied to the federal government. The fourteenth amendment and the incorporation doctrine applied some of the bill of rights or pieces thereof to the states.

Does the 1st amendment also only apply to the federal government?

 

[purplehaze]

The op was talking about beyer and his view of the founding fathers which is fairly correct as you pointed out only recently has the second amendment been applied to the states. Where did you guys get educated at?

Oh horse puckey. Remember the preamble? The part about "...a more perfect union" and the part about "......United Staes of America"? Remember those municipalities like Chicago and Washington DC that lost recent Supreme Court cases? Sorry PH, not buying it.

 

[Gideon]

While I understand that the Bill of Rights was only applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment, personally, I believe the 9th Amendment should have taken care of all of that.

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

In other words, the right of the Federal, State, and Local governments to make laws CANNOT be used to make laws that are counter to the rights of the people, which, according to the 10th Amendment, is EVERYTHING not specifically listed as being available to the government.

 

[purplehaze]

The founding fathers would have been dismayed and offended by your very liberal and progressive thoughts.

While I understand that the Bill of Rights was only applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment, personally, I believe the 9th Amendment should have taken care of all of that.

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

In other words, the right of the Federal, State, and Local governments to make laws CANNOT be used to make laws that are counter to the rights of the people, which, according to the 10th Amendment, is EVERYTHING not specifically listed as being available to the government.

 

[Gideon]

The founding fathers would have been dismayed and offended by your very liberal and progressive thoughts.

Considering that I just defined the modern conservative ideology, I doubt it, though if you were referring to the classic sense of the word, then perhaps.

I doubt they would have disagreed, considering that most of them didn't want to include the Bill of Rights in the first place (and risk the negative pregnant). The 9th Amendment was added to appease the Framers who were afraid that the enumeration of specific rights would allow the government to limit other rights which were supposed to be inherent or implied.

 

[purplehaze]

They did disagree and wrote a document that only limited the power of a distant central government. But, your very liberal and progressive interpretation is promising and was shared then and today by activist justices.

 

[WILLARD]

Until 1890 it only applied to the federal government. The fourteenth amendment and the incorporation doctrine applied some of the bill of rights or pieces thereof to the states.

PH I understand the 14th amendment and incorporation. For those of us that dont understand please give us an example of how we can have a right on a federal level and not on a state level. I was confused about this in the recent supreme court cases. We all live in a state except the residents of DC. thanks willard

 

[Gideon]

But, your very liberal and progressive interpretation is promising and was shared then and today by activist justices.

Would you mind explaining how limiting the power of government is liberal or progressive? Or how activist judges (who by definition just make up new rights and laws from the bench through reinterpretation) are in any way related to my viewpoint (which is the extreme version of strict constructionist)?